I present the report of the recommendations of the whips relating to committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 24 May 2010.
The report read as follows—
Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business for Monday, 24 May 2010. The order of precedence and allotments of time for items in the Main Committee and Chamber are as follows:
Items recommended for Main Committee (6.55 to 8.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR MORRISON: To move:
That the House:
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Morrison—5 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR GEORGANAS: To move:
That the House:
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Georganas—5 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MR FORREST: To move:
That the House:
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Forrest—10 minutes.
Next Member—10 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR OAKESHOTT: To move:
That the House:
Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30 pm.
Speech time limits—
Mr Oakeshott—5 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items recommended for House of Representatives Chamber (8.40 to 9.30 pm)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS
Presentation and statements
1 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS
Inquiry into raising the productivity growth rate in the Australian economy.
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—statement to conclude by 8.50 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr C. R. Thomson (Chair)—5 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
2 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Human Rights in the Asia Pacific: Challenges and Opportunities.
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms Rea (Sub-Committee Chair)—5 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
3 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND HONG KONG
Report on the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong in November 2009.
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9.05 pm
Speech time limits—
Dr Southcott (Deputy Delegation Leader)—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to provide that government acquisition of any property rights, or restrictions on the exercise of property rights can only be undertaken after the provision of compensation on just terms. (Constitution Alteration (Just Terms) 2010).
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
2 MR HALE: To move:
That the House:
Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 9.30 pm.
Speech time limits—
Mr Hale—5 minutes
Other Members—5 minutes each
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Report adopted.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Indexation) Bill 2010 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to deliver on this government’s commitment to sustainable funding for our higher education system.
The amendment gives effect to the recommendation to increase indexation made by the Bradley review.
Under new indexation arrangements, the safety net adjustment, which makes up 75 per cent of the current index, will be replaced by the Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Labour Price Index (discounted by 10 per cent) published by the Australian Statistician.
This index is considered to better reflect wage price increases in the higher education sector and best replaces the discontinued Labour Price Index (Professional) proposed in the report of the review. The remaining 25 per cent of the index will continue to be the Consumer Price Index.
From 2012 the revised indexation arrangements will apply to all amounts subject to indexation under part 5-6 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This includes all programs funded under the act, maximum student contributions, the OS-HELP loan limit and the FEE-HELP loan limit as well as the new SA-HELP loan limit which is subject to the passage of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009.
Programs which will benefit from the improved indexation, in both education and research, are:
In 2011 universities will receive additional funding equivalent to the increase in indexation on teaching and learning if they sign on to the government’s new performance indicators. Student contributions will also be indexed at the new rate from 2011 delivering an increase in revenue to universities.
At a time when, in response to the global financial crisis, some countries are reducing their expenditure on higher education, this government has acted to provide substantial additional resources to the sector.
Take for example two comparable nations like England and the United States of America.
In England there have been deep cuts to higher education spending. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) grant available for the 2010-11 financial year has been reduced by £449 million (A$740.9 million) compared with the previously announced plans.
And in the US the experience has been mixed. In many states the push to address historic budget gaps has resulted in cuts to state government support. While there has been additional investment at a federal level to offset state cuts, this has not always been enough to prevent severe measures to address funding shortfalls.
This is particularly the case in California where state budgets for higher education have been cut by US$8 billion.
To deal with these funding cuts, both the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) have eliminated spring enrolment in 2010 which means that many students who would have transferred across from a community college will not have the opportunity.
According to the American Association of Community Colleges, California’s community colleges may turn away up to 200,000 students this fall in the United States.
In contrast to these approaches the Australian government has made a massive investment in the tertiary education and research sectors.
This is because we know that Australia’s universities have a critical part to play in making this country smarter, fairer and more prosperous.
In order to meet our economic and social ambitions we need to make sure that our universities are properly resourced and able to tackle the problems, and teach the workforce, of the future.
Our new system brings in a range of institutional and regulatory reforms, which, coupled with substantial additional resourcing, will allow more students from across the community to achieve a higher education qualification and find a rewarding job in the knowledge economy.
Our reforms will also dramatically strengthen the nation’s research effort and the national innovation system, which is so vital to building productivity.
And, importantly, this amendment puts the government’s commitment to a much higher rate of indexation into legislation.
The importance of providing this resourcing is made even more salient because we know that other forward thinking nations, such as many of the developing nations in our region are already increasing their investment.
Over the five years from 2003 to 2007, China and India both invested heavily to increase total tertiary enrolments in all programs by an average of 16 per cent and 7.2 per cent per year respectively.
This makes it even more important to invest in the knowledge and skills of our people if we are to thrive in the competitive global economy.
My department estimates that this new, higher indexation rate will deliver over $2.6 billion in additional resourcing to universities over the five calendar years from 2011 to 2015.
This comes in addition to the funding we will be providing for the student-centred system. The additional funding for extra student places is now $1.3 billion up from the $437 million estimated at last year’s budget, over the budget forward estimates period. And of course, universities also receive additional resourcing from student contributions. This increase in funding is resulting from the 9.9 per cent overenrolment above-target places this year and continuing pipeline, far in excess of budget projections.
This funding is in addition to the $7.1 billion of additional funding already committed to higher education, which is made up of:
This government has a massive reform agenda in higher education.
Enrolments driven by student demand and informed choice, performance based funding, mission based compacts—all of these reforms will give universities an entirely new degree of control over their own destinies.
There is a great deal of work to be done and by entrenching the new, higher indexation formula in legislation the government is clearly demonstrating that we are committed to driving reform backed by sustainable funding for the long term. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
I move:
That consideration of government business orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, Airports (On-Airport Activities Administration) Validation Bill 2010, and Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2010, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Health Legislation Amendment (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and Private Health Insurance) Bill 2010 (the bill) will amend the National Health Act 1953 and the Private Health Insurance Act 2007.
The bill provides for amendments to the National Health Act 1953 to extend the authority of the Pharmacy Location Rules and the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority from 30 June 2010 to 30 June 2015.
The bill also introduces amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 that will ensure the lifetime health cover policy is applied fairly and consistently to all residents of Australia who are eligible for Medicare. The bill addresses some anomalies currently in the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 that may inadvertently advantage or disadvantage some people with respect to the application of the lifetime health cover policy.
Australian Community Pharmacy Authority
This bill proposes amendments to the National Health Act 1953 relating to the arrangements for approving pharmacists to supply pharmaceutical benefits subsidised by the Commonwealth. These amendments are the result of the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement negotiated between the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the government, and are aimed at ensuring that all Australians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, have reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. Significantly, this bill will extend the operation of the Pharmacy Location Rules and their administration by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority.
These rules prescribe location based criteria that must be satisfied in order for a pharmacist to obtain approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits at particular premises. Once approved, a pharmacist is entitled to be paid by the Commonwealth for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. The extension of these rules and its administration by the authority until 30 June 2015 will provide stability in the pharmacy sector and help to ensure that an accessible network of pharmacies exists to dispense pharmaceutical benefits to the Australian public.
The amendments to the National Health Act 1953 will commence on royal assent.
Lifetime health cover and new migrants
Under lifetime health cover policy, people who do not take out private health insurance hospital cover by their ‘lifetime health cover base day’, as it is known in the act, are required to pay a two per cent loading on their premium for every year they are aged over 30 when first taking out hospital cover. For most people, the lifetime health cover base day is the 1 July following their 31st birthday. The maximum loading a person may be required to pay is 70 per cent and is payable by people who first take out private health insurance hospital cover at age 65 or older.
However, for migrants who enter Australia after 1 July following their 31st birthday, their lifetime health cover base day is the first anniversary after they are registered for full Medicare benefits (their ‘Medicare eligibility day’) and they need to take out private health insurance hospital cover before this date in order to avoid the application of a lifetime health cover loading.
This bill amends the legislation relating to lifetime health cover to ensure it is consistent and fair for all new migrants to Australia who are over 31 years of age and have full access to Medicare benefits. The amendments only apply to people whose lifetime health cover base day falls after 1 July 2010. The amendments do not affect Australian citizens.
The bill resolves some anomalies that currently exist in the present legislation relating to new migrants. Currently, the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 refers to ‘new arrivals’. A ‘new arrival’ must have arrived in Australia for the first time on or after 1 July 2000 and is not an Australian citizen or permanent resident. This has the effect of excluding people who temporarily visited Australia before that time, for example, as a tourist, and of excluding people who migrate to Australia with a permanent residence visa, even though they may be entering Australia for the first time.
The bill removes an anomaly that allows migrants who turned 31 on or before 1 July 2000, and who were overseas on that day, to have access to ‘permitted days without cover’, without ever actually holding private health insurance hospital cover. The Private Health Insurance Act 2007 allows people who hold private health insurance hospital cover to cease their cover in specific circumstances and for a limited period of time without incurring a lifetime health cover loading, known as ‘permitted days without cover’.
‘Permitted days without cover’ are:
The ‘permitted days without cover’ provision recognises that there may be circumstances when it is difficult or impractical for people to maintain their hospital cover (for example, if facing temporary financial hardship) and is intended to make reasonable allowance for these unforseen eventualities.
Because migrants who turned 31 on or before 1 July 2000 and who were overseas on that day were taken to have private health insurance hospital cover on their ‘lifetime health cover base day’, they have access to a substantially longer period of time (in some cases up to almost four years) instead of the intended 12-month period from their registration for full Medicare benefits in which to take out private health insurance hospital cover without incurring a lifetime health cover loading. The amendment corrects this unintended outcome. Instead, such people will have 12 months from their ‘Medicare eligibility day’, the same as all other migrants, and consistent with the original policy intention.
The amendments in the bill will ensure that in the future, the lifetime health cover provisions have the same effect for all migrants. The change will ensure that the legislation relating to lifetime health cover is consistent and fair for all migrants. Additionally, the amendments will benefit the private health insurance industry by removing inconsistencies, which will result in simplified administrative procedures.
The amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 commence on 1 July 2010. The amendments do not affect Australian citizens, nor any migrants who have had a ‘lifetime health cover base day’ on or before 30 June 2010.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
I move:
Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2010
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2010
The excise and customs tariff proposals that I have just tabled propose an increase to the excise and excise equivalent customs duty applying to tobacco and tobacco products. Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2010 and Customs Tariff Proposal (No.2) 2010 formally place before the parliament proposed increases of 25 per cent to the excise and excise equivalent customs duty on tobacco products. This equates to an increase in the rates of excise and customs duty applying to tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and snuff from 0.26220 to 0.32775 per stick not exceeding 0.8 grams per stick actual tobacco content in weight—I can see from the look on Mr Speaker’s face that this is, I know, a complex way to put it to the House but I understand the technical requirements for this proposal—and from $327.77 to $409.71 per kilogram of tobacco content for other tobacco, for example, loose tobacco, with effect on and from 30 April 20010. These changes were gazetted on 29 April 2010 in accordance with section 160B of the Excise Act 1901 and section 273EA of the Customs Act 1901 and are now being tabled in the House of Representatives.
The government is committed to reducing the rate of smoking in the Australian community and the revenue raised from this measure, along with existing revenues collected from tobacco, will be directly invested in better health and better hospitals through the new National Health and Hospitals Network Fund. A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
In calling the Minister for Health and Ageing, I have made a check, and there is no snuff box in the drawers.
I am pleased to hear that, Mr Speaker.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to establish in legislation the increase in the excise applying to tobacco products.
Tobacco is perhaps the most deadly legal product available in Australia. It is the leading preventable cause of disease and premature death in Australia.
In 2003 it was estimated that smoking results in approximately 15,000 Australian deaths a year. This is more deaths than murder, illegal drugs, motor vehicle accidents and alcohol combined.
Tobacco related diseases are also responsible for approximately 750,000 bed days in hospitals every year.
The total cost to Australian society to tobacco is estimated at $31.5 billion each year.
Cigarettes are toxic and poisonous—containing 4,000 chemicals. Cigarettes are estimated to cause one in five of all cancer deaths. Smoking is a major cause of cancers of the lung, larynx, throat, oral cavities, oesophagus, bladder, kidney, pancreas, stomach, cervix and the blood. It also causes heart disease, stroke, blindness, emphysema and increases the risk of miscarriage, stillbirth and complications during birth.
That is why successive Commonwealth and state governments have taken action to reduce Australia’s smoking rates. This has included action at the Commonwealth level by increasing taxation, conducting hard-hitting social marketing campaigns, banning tobacco advertising and introducing graphic warning labels. States and territories have also acted by banning smoking inside licensed venues, running Quitline services and hiding cigarettes from view at point of sale.
This action has had a dramatic effect. The number of daily smokers aged 14 and over in Australia has been reduced from approximately 30.5 per cent of Australians in 1988 to 16.6 per cent in 2007.
This is important progress—but we can and must do better.
That is why the government has announced a comprehensive package targeted at smoking.
Prevention is better than cure, and tackling smoking is one of the best investments we can make in keeping people healthy.
In 2008 the government initiated two major reviews which looked at the issue of taxation for tobacco.
The National Preventative Health Taskforce was asked to recommend action to reduce the health burden of tobacco, alcohol and obesity. In its report the first tobacco recommendation it made was to significantly increase the price of tobacco. It said:
Increasing prices is one of the most effective measures that government can take to reduce tobacco consumption and prevalence.
It recommended a staged increase in prices, up until the price of 30 cigarettes reached $20.
The Australia’s Future Tax System Review also looked at the issue of tobacco taxation and concluded:
There is a strong case for a substantial one-off increase in tobacco excise. Australian retail prices for cigarettes are moderate by international standards and taxes constitute a relatively small share of the retail price.
It recommended a substantial increase in taxation depending upon evidence on the costs of harm from tobacco smoking, the indexing of tobacco excise to wages rather than CPI and the removal of duty-free allowance for tobacco.
These reports build on the evidence from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa and other countries demonstrating that higher taxation makes a significant contribution to cutting smoking rates. This has shown to be particularly effective for young people. Taxation has also been recommended by the World Bank and the World Health Organisation as one of the most effective ways to cut smoking levels.
Acting on this advice, on 29 April the Prime Minister and I announced that the government was taking action to increase the price of tobacco.
The government, as of 30 April 2010, increased the excise and excise-equivalent customs duty rate applying to tobacco products by 25 per cent. This is the first increase above inflation in the taxation on tobacco in more than a decade.
This has seen the excise on cigarettes rising from 26.22c per stick to 32.775c per stick, and the excise on other tobacco, such as loose leaf tobacco, from $327.77 per kilogram of tobacco content to $409.71 per kilogram of tobacco content. The excise-equivalent customs duty on comparable imported tobacco products has been increased by the same amount.
This has increased the tax on a pack of 30 cigarettes by $2.16 and the tax on a pack of 25 cigarettes by $1.80. These are averages; the prices are different for different brands. This means that the price of a regular pack of 30 cigarettes is now over $15 and a pack of 25 cigarettes is now over $14.
This is expected to reduce the number of smokers in Australia by two to three per cent, or approximately 87,000 people. It is also expected to reduce the total consumption of tobacco by around six per cent.
This move has been endorsed by the Australian Medical Association, the National Heart Foundation, the Cancer Council of Australia, the Australian Nursing Federation, the Public Health Association of Australia and Action on Smoking and Health, among other public health groups.
This measure is part of a comprehensive package against smoking, including, in a world first, the fact that the government will introduce legislation to ensure that cigarettes in Australia are sold in plain packaging by 1 July 2012.
This will remove one of the last frontiers for cigarette advertising and it was also a recommendation from the Preventative Health Taskforce. Logos, brand imagery, colours and promotional text will be restricted or prohibited. Mandated graphic health warnings will be updated and expanded.
Research has shown that industry branding and packaging design reduce the effectiveness of graphic health warnings on tobacco products.
The government is also investing over $85 million in hard-hitting antismoking advertising campaigns and it will be introducing legislation to bring restrictions on tobacco internet advertising in Australia into line with other media.
And on this side of the House we have also taken the principled stand to refuse to accept political donations from the tobacco industry. The same cannot be said for those on the other side of the House.
This comprehensive antismoking package follows the landmark COAG agreement that delivered fundamental reform to Australia’s health and hospital system.
The expected $5 billion of extra revenue from this measure, along with existing revenues from tobacco, will be directly invested in better health and hospitals through the National Health and Hospitals Network Fund.
This will help deliver better health and better hospitals for all Australians.
Under the government’s National Health and Hospitals Network, the government is investing $7.3 billion in additional funding over five years.
This funding will deliver new beds, more doctors and better hospitals. This bill will be crucial to funding those improvements.
It builds upon other actions the government has taken to improve preventative health:
Yesterday the government released its response to the National Preventative Health Taskforce, detailing where the government is taking action and what steps are still under active consideration.
The government will continue to make further investments in preventative health, particularly once we have established our national agency to provide expert advice to the Commonwealth, the states and the territories.
This bill represents the next bold step on preventative health.
It will have a strong impact on combating the prevalence of smoking and reducing the number of preventable diseases and premature deaths in this country. The revenue raised by the excise increase will be directly invested in better health and hospitals for all Australians.
I commend it to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 is the second of the related bills which will increase the rates of duty for tobacco products, more detailed comments of which I have made on the earlier bill.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995, in respect of imported tobacco products, that are complementary to the amendments made to the Excise Tariff Act 1921.
These amendments increase the rates of customs duty for tobacco products by 25 per, which is the same as the increase in rates of excise duty. The increased rates of customs duty will apply to tobacco products imported from all countries, including those goods imported under any of Australia’s free trade agreements.
These amendments will ensure that the rates for customs duty on imported tobacco products are the same as the rates of excise duty on those goods when produced in Australia. Again these amendments will reduce the number of smoking related diseases and fatalities in Australia.
As with the amendments to the excise applying to tobacco products, the amendments to the Customs Tariff Act will also take effect from 30 April 2010 and I commend them to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) 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 Airports (On-Airport Activities Administration) Validation Bill 2010 will validate potentially invalid infringement notices and other matters done by persons not validly authorised under the Airports (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations 1997 in relation to certain activities at the following Commonwealth leased airports: Adelaide, Alice Springs, Archerfield, Bankstown, Brisbane, Camden, Canberra, Darwin, Essendon, Gold Coast, Hobart, Jandakot, Launceston, Melbourne (Tullamarine), Moorabbin, Mount Isa, Parafield, Perth, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith), Tennant Creek and Townsville.
Under the Airports (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations, authorised persons, who must be appointed by the secretary of the department or the secretary’s delegate, are empowered to issue infringement notices for contraventions of certain rules relating to the airport including parking infringement notices.
In addition, authorised persons may perform certain other actions and exercise certain other powers. For example, under regulation 110, an authorised person for an airport may direct a driver of a vehicle used at the airport in contravention of a parking control to move the vehicle.
Following an examination of parking infringement notices issued at certain airports and other authorisations recently, it has become apparent that the appointment of authorised persons at a number of airports has not been kept up to date, going as far back as 2004. In some cases, this was due to the administrative oversight by the department and, in some cases, that of the airports. As a consequence, parking infringement notices issued and other actions performed by persons without a valid authorisation may be invalid and of no legal effect.
Payment of a parking infringement notice provides a person with immunity from prosecution for an alleged offence at the relevant airport. This significantly reduces the potential penalty which a driver may be required to pay for committing the parking offence. A driver may face a penalty five times the amount of the parking infringement notice should the matter be taken to court and the driver found to have committed the offence.
This legislation will confirm immunity from prosecution from the relevant offences of persons who received the infringement notices and paid the corresponding amount. It is therefore important for the government to act quickly to bring forward this legislation.
The bill will validate all actions performed and powers exercised under the regulations, including the issuance of parking infringement notices, at any current or former leased federal airport up until the bill commences, to the extent that those actions or powers were performed or exercised by persons not validly authorised.
The bill will provide the necessary legal certainty that each parking infringement notice and relevant other action are valid and legally effective.
On my instruction, the department took immediate steps to address this oversight prospectively, by seeking advice from each airport and appointing as authorised persons the appropriate persons at each airport.
The department is undertaking a full review of all processes and procedures relating to its administration of the Parking Infringement Notices Scheme and the regulations more broadly in order to meet the standard required by the government.
The authorisations are now all up to date and all parking infringement notices issued since 25 March of this year are valid. In the interim, this legislation is required to address the uncertainty about the validity of parking infringement notices issued prior to 25 March. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) 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 Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2010 will ensure that heavy vehicle owners who operate under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) are not unfairly levied with higher registration charge increases next financial year than vehicle owners who are registered in state or territory systems.
The bill will ensure that from 1 July 2010, heavy vehicle owners of trucks and trailers registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme will pay a registration increase of only 4.2 per cent instead of 9.7 per cent.
This bill proposes a minor, technical amendment to delete subsection 5(6) of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985.
The Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 imposes registration charges for heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) to recover the cost of road usage by heavy vehicles.
Subsection 5(6) of that act specifies that any regulations made for the purpose of section 5 (amount of charge) must not take effect earlier than the first day after the end of the disallowance period.
The effect of subsection 5(6) is that it prevents amended regulations that would lower the annual registration charges adjustment from a 9.7 per cent increase in registration charges to a 4.2 per cent increase from coming into effect on 1 July 2010.
Instead the adjusted, lower charge would come into effect after 15 parliamentary sitting days from when the new regulations are made—which would not be until late September 2010.
This would affect over 1,000 FIRS vehicle owners who would be charged the higher 9.7 per cent registration increase (determined automatically under the current regulations) rather than the proposed 4.2 per cent increase because the adjusted charge would not come into effect until late September.
There is no administrative option available to deal with this issue. The act does not provide a ‘refund’ power that could enable vehicle owners charged the 9.7 per cent increase to have the difference returned to them.
Deleting subsection 5(6) will not in any way remove parliamentary scrutiny. The provisions of part 5 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 that facilitate scrutiny by the parliament will still apply to amendments to the regulations. Those provisions could still operate to disallow an amendment to the regulations that came into effect on 1 July 2010.
The bill will help implement the agreement by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) that heavy vehicle charges should be adjusted annually to maintain cost recovery.
In February 2008, the Australian Transport Council adopted the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination, which ensures that the road user charge and heavy vehicle registration charges achieve cost recovery from the heavy vehicle industry for its fair share of road infrastructure and maintenance costs incurred by governments in Australia.
In 2009 an agreed automatic adjustment formula was included in the Commonwealth Interstate Road Transport Charge Regulations 2009 for application to the 20,500 heavy vehicles registered under the FIRS. That automatic annual adjustment to heavy vehicle registration charges applies from 1 July each year.
Adjustments to the heavy vehicle registration charge depend heavily on changes in the level of spending on roads and bridges and on changes in road usage by heavy vehicles.
Roads expenditure across all levels of government has increased significantly in recent years. At the same time, there has been a substantial growth in the number of higher productivity heavy vehicles using the road network.
The effects of those factors in the current automatic annual adjustment formula results in a registration charge increase of 9.7 per cent and a potential national over-recovery of $116 million from heavy vehicle owners and operators in 2010-11.
All transport ministers agreed to address this over-recovery at their meeting held in Perth on 30 April 2010 by amending their respective charges legislation to ensure the formula neither under nor over charges the trucking industry. They also agreed that industry should benefit from this lower adjustment from 1 July 2010.
State and territory governments will implement the adjusted 4.2 per cent registration charge increase from 1 July 2010.
The adjusted 4.2 per cent figure has been calculated by the National Transport Commission following appropriate adjustments to the current charges formula to address any over-recovery resulting from changes in the heavy vehicle fleet mix.
I asked the National Transport Commission to undertake public consultation on the proposed charges adjustment, consistent with requirements under the relevant legislation.
It would be fair to say that industry acknowledges it needs to pay its fair share for road usage and that the 4.2 per cent adjustment is a preferable outcome for it than an adjustment of 9.7 per cent.
The principle of cost recovery has been broadly agreed by all governments and industry and the charges aim to recover, not over-recover or under-recover, the heavy vehicle industry’s share of aggregate government road expenditure.
Governments have been spending more on roads; more and heavier vehicles have been using roads. The charges need to reflect these factors.
This government is working successfully through COAG with all states and territories to deliver national, streamlined heavy vehicle regulation that will provide an even, certain and transparent playing field for the heavy vehicle industry.
We need to be sure that this extends to all areas of industry operations, including registration charges.
The passage of this bill is necessary to ensure that federally registered vehicles will not be differently and unfairly charged compared to vehicles registered under state or territory law.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
I move:
That consideration of government business order of the day No. 5, Paid Parental Bill 2010, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mrs Elliot.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the National Health Amendment (Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2010.
The bill delivers on the 2009-10 budget commitment to introduce the Continence Aids Payment Scheme.
The Continence Aids Payment Scheme will assist people who have permanent and severe incontinence to meet some of the costs of their continence products through a direct payment.
It replaces the current Continence Aids Assistance Scheme which provides continence products through a government agreement with a sole supplier.
The bill will enable the formulation of a legislative scheme under which the Commonwealth will make direct cash payments as a contribution towards the cost of buying products that manage incontinence.
Medicare Australia will transact the payments on behalf of the Department of Health and Ageing and the department will retain policy authority for the new scheme.
Importantly, the bill introduces transition arrangements for clients of the current scheme to the new scheme from 1 July 2010.
The bill also ensures adequate transparency and accountability by enabling the review of decisions made under the scheme, including via the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as well as by allowing the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing, or the Medicare Australia CEO, to audit payment arrangements by requesting information about CAPS eligibility or payment(s).
This power will enable prompt investigation into any claims of ineligibility or improper use of funds.
Failure to comply with a request for information will be an offence under the National Health Act 1953, which provides a deterrent to behaviour which may be contrary to the intent of the new scheme.
Consistent with the government’s 2009-10 budget announcements, the program will be funded by a special (standing) appropriation enabled under section 137(1) of the National Health Act 1953.
This is particularly important in the context of an eligibility based, demand driven program.
Subject to the passage of the bill through parliament, the new Continence Aids Payment Scheme arrangements will take effect from 1 July 2010.
Conclusion
As I mentioned, I am very pleased to be able to introduce this bill and the change to the continence product supplier market that the introduction of the new scheme represents.
I am also pleased to deliver on a very important budget measure.
The Continence Aids Payment Scheme promotes consumer choice and control which is consistent with the government’s Charter of Consumer Rights and Responsibilities for Community Care, released in 2009, and which is also promoted in the Commonwealth’s aged-care programs through the Aged Care Act 1997.
As a result of the successful passage of the bill, recipients under the scheme will have greater flexibility and choice in where they purchase their continence products.
Product suppliers and service providers will have equitable access to the client base, in an open and competitive market.
The Department of Health and Ageing will continue to work closely with the sector and the recipients of the scheme over the coming months to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will introduce Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme to begin on 1 January 2011.
Eligible working parents of babies born or adopted from 1 January next year will receive 18 weeks parental leave pay at the federal minimum wage.
The scheme is fully costed and funded by the government. It is fair to business and fair for families.
This historic reform is a major win for working families who have been waiting decades for a national paid parental leave scheme.
Australia is currently one of only two OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme.
Today, with this legislation, we catch up with the rest of the developed world.
Paid parental leave will give babies the best start in life. It means one parent has the financial security to take time off work to care for their baby at home during the vital early months of their baby’s life. It will give mothers time to recover from birth and bond with their baby.
The government’s scheme meets the challenges and realities of modern family life—giving parents more time at home with their new baby and helping them balance their work and family responsibilities.
It supports women to maintain their connection with the workforce and boosts workforce participation.
Our scheme also lets families make their own work and family choices. Parents can transfer the leave so mums and dads have more options for balancing work and family.
And now, under our scheme, women in seasonal, casual and contract work and the self-employed will have access to paid parental leave—most of them for the first time.
The scheme will prepare Australia for the challenges of the future. Business will benefit from the retention of skilled and experienced female staff but will not have to fund the parental leave payments.
And because the government respects the work and family choices that each family makes, we will continue to support mothers whether they are in a paid job or at home. Families not eligible for paid parental leave, or who choose not to participate in the scheme, will be able to continue to access the baby bonus and family tax benefit if they are eligible.
Acknowledgements
This has been a long campaign for so many people and I do want to acknowledge the many, many women and men who have campaigned for paid parental leave in Australia. This day belongs to them.
I would particularly like to acknowledge Sharan Burrow and the trade union movement for their tireless campaigning for Australian families, Marie Coleman and others from the National Foundation for Australian Women, as well as the current and previous sex discrimination commissioners—Elizabeth Broderick and Pru Goward.
I would also like to acknowledge the leadership of Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group, Katie Lahey from the Business Council of Australia and those best practice employers who are already providing paid parental leave because they know it is good for business.
It really has been a campaign that has been in the best interests of Australian families and now, finally, we have a government that will deliver a Paid Parental Leave scheme to Australian families.
Policy development and consultation
The Paid Parental Leave scheme outlined in this bill is based closely on the expert recommendations of the Productivity Commission. It is the culmination of over two years of policy development and public consultation to develop a scheme to respond to Australia’s current social and economic circumstances as well as to help us to prepare for the future.
Around a third of mothers return to work within six months of the birth of their child. Two-thirds of these mothers return to work because they need the money.
Even so, Australian women’s workforce participation during the peak child-bearing years is lower than for women in other leading industrialised countries. As a nation, we cannot continue to ignore the barriers to greater participation by women, who now make up 45 per cent of the paid workforce.
This is why we committed before the 2007 election to explore ways to make it as easy as possible for working mums to balance their work with the important job of adjusting to parenthood, and bonding with their children.
In February 2008, we asked the Productivity Commission to look at the economic, productivity and social costs and benefits of paid maternity, paternity and parental leave. The commission was also asked to consider the health and developmental benefits of any scheme for babies and their parents.
The commission analysed the evidence from Australian longitudinal surveys and international research. It undertook extensive public consultation on proposals for the scheme. It sought public submissions and conducted public hearings.
The Productivity Commission recommended the introduction of a government funded statutory scheme of paid parental leave, paid at the level of the national minimum wage for up to 18 weeks. It was a scheme based on sound evidence and rigorous analysis.
In last year’s budget, the government committed more than $250 million a year to Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme, based closely on the Productivity Commission’s recommendations.
This was a commitment to Australian working families that redressed more than a decade of inaction when those opposite were in government.
We knew the scheme was needed, we knew it was affordable and that it balanced the interests of business and families.
The government’s commitment to consultation did not end when we announced the Paid Parental Leave scheme in the 2009-10 budget.
During late 2009, 32 consultations sessions were held with over 200 key stakeholders, including major employer groups and trade unions, representatives of small business, family and community stakeholder groups, and tax professionals, payroll specialists and payroll software developers.
For two years, the government has listened to what families have had to say about the scheme. For two years, the government has listened to the concerns of employers, large and small, who have provided very valuable feedback. We have listened to the community, gathered evidence and considered how to balance the interests of parents, employers and the wider community.
The scheme presented in this bill today reflects this extensive consultation process and is fair, balanced and affordable.
Eligibility for paid parental leave
The government estimates that, each year, around 148,000 people will be eligible for paid parental leave.
The scheme will provide eligible working mothers and initial primary carers of children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2011 with up to 18 weeks parental leave pay at the national minimum wage, while they stay at home to look after their baby or adopted child.
In addition to full-time workers, women working part time, and in seasonal, casual or contract work, and the self-employed, may be able to access paid parental leave—many for the first time.
A mother may be eligible if she has worked continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months before the birth or adoption of her child, and has worked for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period (around one day a week).
To meet the needs of contractors, seasonal and casual workers who have irregular work patterns, a person can have a break of up to eight weeks between working days and still be considered to have worked continuously.
Parental leave pay will also be available to parents who work in their own business or a family business, such as a farm.
Generally, it will be mothers who claim parental leave payments in the first instance as they usually provide the primary care of their child during the initial months of the child’s life.
However, it is becoming increasingly common for men to spend some time being the primary carer of the child during its first year. Our Paid Parental Leave scheme is flexible and will allow parents to make their own work and family choices.
The legislation allows all or part of the parental leave pay to be transferred to the child’s other parent, provided they also meet the eligibility requirements and are the primary carer of the child.
Paid parental leave must be taken in one continuous 18-week block within 12 months of the child’s birth or adoption, including in cases where the payment is transferred to the other parent or carer. A person cannot work during the paid parental leave period, although they can stay connected with their workplace through ‘keeping in touch’ provisions.
Paid parental leave can be taken before, after, or at the same time as other leave entitlements such as annual leave or employer funded maternity leave to best suit a family’s circumstances.
A person will be eligible if they have individual income of $150,000 or less in the financial year before the claim or birth of the baby, whichever is the earlier. This is a generous income test, but consistent with the principle of targeting government support to those most in need.
A person must also be living in Australia and generally be an Australian citizen or permanent resident to be eligible. Some non-residents are able to receive the payment, as is the case with family assistance.
Families receiving parental leave pay will not be able to receive the baby bonus, and family tax benefit part B will also not be payable for the duration of the parental leave pay.
Eligible families will be able to choose whether to take paid parental leave or the baby bonus, according to their individual circumstances.
The government estimates that more than 85 per cent of families will be better off taking paid parental leave. These families will, on average, receive around $2,000 more than if they chose the baby bonus. This is after tax has been paid and all interactions with other family assistance have been taken into account.
To help families make the choice that is best for them, an online estimator will be available from September 2010.
The government values the hard work of all mothers, regardless of whether they are in paid work.
We know that all mothers ‘work’ regardless of whether they are at home or in a paid job, and that most mothers will spend time in and out of the workforce depending on their circumstances.
We will continue to support mothers whether they are in a paid job or at home. The baby bonus and family tax benefit will remain available for families not eligible for the scheme, and for those who choose not to participate in the scheme.
Casuals
Casual workers are set to be big winners from Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme.
Women are more likely to be casual workers and make up almost 57 per cent of all casual employees in Australia.
Almost 25 per cent of employed women work in casual jobs and receive no paid leave entitlements.
To help seasonal, contract and casual workers access paid parental leave, parents who are not employed at the time of the birth of their child but have satisfied the work test will be eligible.
Many seasonal, contract and casual workers have irregular work patterns and may not be in work immediately before the birth of their child.
Under our scheme, an eligible mother who is a contract worker but whose contract finishes before her baby is born will still receive parental leave pay, providing she meets the work test.
Eligible parents not employed at the time of the birth of their child will be paid directly by the Family Assistance Office.
The role of employers
Our scheme recognises that taking time off to have a baby is a normal part of working life.
Our scheme is fair to business. The parental leave pay is fully funded by the government. And it does not involve any new taxes on business. It will help employers enhance the family-friendly workplace conditions many already offer.
The government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair, balanced and economically responsible. The scheme will benefit employers by assisting them to retain skilled and valuable staff, without having to fund the parental leave pay.
Employers are integral to the rollout of Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme. Most women will receive government funded parental leave pay from their employers.
By receiving parental leave pay through their usual pay cycle just as other workplace entitlements are paid, women will remain connected to their workplaces and be more likely to return to work.
Employers will provide parental leave pay for their long-term employees—those with at least 12 months of continuous service. Other women will receive parental leave pay from the Family Assistance Office.
The Paid Parental Leave scheme has been designed to minimise its impact on employers required to provide parental leave pay to long-term employees.
We understand that it is important to make arrangements simple and consistent with existing employer practices and obligations.
In any one year, nine per cent of all businesses will be involved in the Paid Parental Leave scheme, and only three per cent of small businesses.
Employers will not have to work out if their employee is eligible. This will be done by the Family Assistance Office.
The Family Assistance Office will also ensure that employers have the required funds before they need to make parental leave payments to their employee. An employer can choose to have these funding amounts advanced in three instalments, if this would be more convenient than fortnightly payments.
It will be ‘business as usual’ for a company’s payroll—employers do not have to change their employee’s usual pay cycle, set up any special bank accounts or report back to the Family Assistance Office. They just have to pay the parental leave pay to their employee with the usual tax deducted.
The participation of employers in the scheme is being phased in to help employers transition to the new arrangements and align with the start of the new financial year.
Employers may opt to provide an employee with parental leave pay from the beginning of the scheme on 1 January 2011. From 1 July 2011, employers will be required to provide government funded parental leave pay to their eligible long-term employees whose babies are born or adopted after this date. This transitional arrangement will be given effect in a bill containing consequential amendments, to be introduced separately.
Parental leave pay will not result in the accrual of any additional paid leave entitlements by employees, nor will it affect the calculation of notice periods or severance payments, or workers’ compensation or accident insurance premiums. The government is also working with state and territory governments to ensure paid parental leave is not subject to payroll tax.
This bill provides employers with a right of appeal if the employer believes that the Family Assistance Office has incorrectly determined that they must provide government funded parental leave pay to an employee.
Similarly, the bill includes appropriate compliance arrangements to make sure that parental leave pay is paid to eligible parents in a timely manner. Any delays in payment, disputes or debts that may arise in the payment process will be managed appropriately by the Family Assistance Office and the Fair Work Ombudsman.
The government’s paid parental leave can be taken in addition to existing employer funded schemes, either at the same time or consecutively. The government’s scheme has been designed to complement and enhance the existing family-friendly arrangements that many employers already offer.
Review and evaluation
The government understands the importance of monitoring and evaluating the Paid Parental Leave scheme, allocating almost $3 million for this purpose.
The government is also committed to a review of the scheme commencing two years after the scheme starts. Both the review and the evaluation will be completed by the end of 2014.
Two issues the government has committed to look at in the review are paid paternity leave and superannuation contributions for the period of paid parental leave.
In summary
Australian families have waited too long for a national Paid Parental Leave scheme and, with this bill, we are catching up with the rest of the developed world.
This has been a long campaign for so many people. This is a government that is finally delivering a Paid Parental Leave scheme to Australian families.
Our scheme does recognise the challenges and realities of modern family life—giving parents more time at home with their new baby, helping them maintain their connection with their job and helping employers retain valuable and skilled staff.
Today is a major win for Australian families, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Gray.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010 will implement significant changes to enhance the government’s ambitious 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target. The enhanced Renewable Energy Target will help fight climate change, it will allow Australia to harness its vast renewable energy resources, and it will drive the deployment of renewable energy technologies, industries and jobs.
This bill is at the core of the government’s clean energy agenda. The Renewable Energy Target is a major climate change initiative implemented by this government to begin to build the low-carbon economy of Australia’s future. Scientists and experts have told us that clean, efficient energy systems will underpin our economic prosperity in the future, and drive our climate change response today. Through the RET, the government is delivering responsible and strong action on climate change—in our homes, our schools, our workplaces and throughout the grid. The enhancements to the RET contained in this bill form a key part of the government’s comprehensive strategy to save energy, cut waste and make the most of our rich renewable resources.
From the power plant to the power point this government is supporting action, large and small, to reduce our carbon pollution. We are delivering small- and large-scale clean energy through targeted funding and a strong 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target. We are helping Australians save energy by modernising the grid, promoting energy efficiency, and improving the design and use of our buildings, appliances and cars.
As announced in the budget the government will commit a further $652.5 million over four years for the establishment of a renewable energy future fund to support Australia’s response to climate change. The fund will provide additional support for the development and deployment of large- and small-scale renewable energy projects, and to enhance the take-up of industrial, commercial and residential energy efficiency.
Through a range of actions and initiatives, the government is giving Australians the tools to do their bit to conserve energy, and creating new clean industries and jobs. At the same time, the government recognises that it is important to build the foundations now that will enable our energy sector to take advantage of opportunities in a carbon constrained world.
Electricity consumption in Australia accounts for more than one-third of national emissions. At the same time, Australia has a wealth of renewable resources. We have some of the world’s best wind resources, and the highest average solar radiation per square metre of any continent. We also have huge potential in geothermal and wave energy. The development of renewable electricity is therefore a crucial part of these low carbon foundations for our future.
The bill I am introducing today, and the government’s coordinated efforts on conservation and efficiency, will deliver for our environment, for our economy, and for Australia’s clean energy future.
The current expanded national Renewable Energy Target scheme
The government remains committed to ensuring that the equivalent of 20 per cent of our electricity supply comes from renewable sources by 2020.
In August 2009, the parliament passed legislation to implement the expanded national Renewable Energy Target, which brought the former Mandatory Renewable Energy Target and previously existing and proposed state and territory schemes into one national scheme. It expanded the previous Mandatory Renewable Energy Target by more than four times from 9,500 gigawatt-hours to 45,000 gigawatt-hours by 2020. The RET creates a guaranteed market for additional renewable energy deployment using a mechanism of tradeable renewable energy certificates that are created by renewable energy generators and owners of small-scale renewable systems.
The enhanced Renewable Energy Target
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010 amends the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 to separate the existing scheme into two parts—the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target, from 1 January 2011.
These changes recognise the challenges that different parts of the renewable energy industry are facing. These changes will continue to support the full range of renewable technologies in both the large-scale and small-scale sectors.
The Large-scale Renewable Energy Target will encourage the deployment of large-scale power generation using energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal, while the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme will provide clear and continuing support to households, businesses and community groups looking to play their part in Australia’s low pollution future by installing renewable energy systems like rooftop solar panels and solar hot-water systems.
The changes are expected to deliver more renewable energy than the original 45,000 gigawatt-hour target, which will help transform the electricity sector and support investment in both large- and small-scale renewable energy projects.
Key design features of the enhanced Renewable Energy Target
The Large-scale Renewable Energy Target
The Large-scale Renewable Energy Target will operate in a similar way to the current scheme. It will apply to accredited power stations using eligible renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, hydro and geothermal energy.
The profile of annual targets under the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target will be 4,000 gigawatt-hours per year less than the current annual targets. This is to take account of the small-scale component, which will provide a separate mechanism for small-scale technologies that will also contribute to the government’s overall target.
To minimise the impact of these changes on the renewable energy market, existing banked renewable energy certificates will only be eligible for use in the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target.
The Large-scale Renewable Energy Target will provide increased certainty for the development of large-scale renewable energy projects by allowing them to grow free from any uncertainty that may have been caused by strong demand for small-scale renewable technologies.
The benefits of the RET and the recent changes are already being realised. For example, within a few days of the government’s announcement to enhance the RET, AGL announced that it had entered into conditional arrangements for the construction of the 365 megawatt capacity Macarthur Wind Farm in south-west Victoria.
The Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme
The new Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme has been designed to work within existing deeming arrangements and the solar credits mechanism to provide clear and stable support to those installing small-scale systems such as solar panels and solar water heaters. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010 will allow for the creation of fixed price renewable energy certificates through the deployment of a range of eligible technologies.
In addition to their obligations to support generation-scale renewables projects under the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target, liable entities will have a concurrent obligation to surrender small-scale certificates and thereby support Australians taking action on climate change on their own properties.
The clearing house
In implementing the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, the changes draw as much as possible on the existing renewable energy target legislative framework in order to minimise compliance costs. Small-scale certificates will be created as per the current processes administered by the regulator, and their creation, transfer and surrender will be recorded on the REC registry as is currently the case.
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010 allows for the establishment of a clearing house that will act as a central point for the transfer of small-scale certificates at $40. Stakeholder feedback indicated that many liable entities and suppliers of small-scale systems wanted the flexibility to trade small-scale certificates on the market, without going through the clearing house, at a price set by agreement between the relevant parties.
In practice, it is expected that many stakeholders will choose to receive an up-front discount on the cost of installation of a small-scale system from their supplier, as they do under the current arrangements, rather than trade the certificate themselves. However, while the clearing house will be optional, it will stand ready to transfer small-scale certificates at the $40 price.
While there will be no overall limit on the creation of small-scale certificates, in order to maximise certainty for liable entities, the bill requires the regulator to estimate and publish for the information of liable entities the total number of certificates expected to be created at the start of each year. The annual targets will be adjusted each year to account for actual small-scale certificate creation in the previous year. Similar to the renewable power percentage in the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target, this will be expressed as a percentage of the liable entity’s relevant wholesale electricity acquisitions.
To facilitate a more regular flow of small-scale certificates from suppliers to liable entities, liable entities will be required to acquit their obligations on a quarterly basis, but with annual assessment by the regulator.
Assistance to Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed Industries
The government recognises that the Renewable Energy Target will have a cost impact on those undertaking certain emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) activities. Partial exemptions are applied to all activities that would have qualified for assistance under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to account for this impact.
Enhancing enforcement provisions
The bill also presents a timely opportunity to further strengthen the compliance regime relating to the creation of renewable energy certificates through certain civil penalty provisions. This is an important step to maintain confidence in the regulatory framework and the operation of the renewable energy certificate market.
Government support for renewable energy
The renewable energy target is part of a suite of government policies encouraging the switch to cleaner energy. To complement the renewable energy target, the government is making significant investment in generation-scale renewables through the $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative.
This initiative includes the $1.5 billion Solar Flagships program to support the construction of large-scale grid-connected solar power stations operating within the energy market. This program will help position Australia as a world leader in solar technology.
The Australian Centre for Renewable Energy is a key plank in Australia’s commitment to clean energy technologies and deploying these technologies around Australia. It draws together more than $560 million in order to accelerate the development, commercialisation and demonstration of renewable energy technologies. It will thus complement the government’s investment in generation-scale demonstration projects under the Solar Flagships program and the sustained commitment to household- and community-scale renewables through initiatives such as the Solar Cities program and the National Solar Schools Program.
In addition, the Australian Solar Institute will provide support for the Australian solar community, helping to retain Australian solar expertise and develop the next generation of Australian solar researchers. The institute will foster greater collaboration between researchers in universities, research institutions and industry and forge strong links with peak overseas research organisations. The first round of solar grants funding program has been completed. Five projects receiving funding of $11.1 million—funding which underpins total project values of $30.9 million—have been supported, two of which are projects that are researching thin-film solar PV technology.
And the government has now committed more than $200 million to accelerate geothermal energy technology development, demonstration and deployment in Australia, leveraging a total investment in excess of $720 million. Funding for several geothermal projects has already been announced.
Conclusion
This bill will encourage the deployment of both major renewable energy projects and household-scale renewable energy systems. The government will work with industry, the parliament and the community to pass these enhancements to the act and ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements. The legislation before the House will deliver significant and timely sets of enhancements that will reduce Australia’s emissions while driving new investment and creating new jobs.
This bill represents a major step toward the transformation of the Australian economy and the building of Australia’s low pollution future. I commend it to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Gray.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2010 amends the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000.
Together with the related Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Small-scale Technology Shortfall Charge) Bill 2010, it implements changes to enhance the Renewable Energy Target (RET) Scheme to separate the existing scheme into two parts—the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target from 1 January 2011.
Combined, the three bills further strengthen the government’s commitment to ensure that at least the equivalent of 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity is supplied from renewable sources by 2020.
This bill establishes a separate rate of shortfall charge of $65 per megawatt hour to encourage compliance with obligations to surrender renewable energy certificates created from large-scale renewable energy power generation.
The related Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Small-scale Technology Shortfall Charge) Bill 2010 establishes a similar shortfall charge in relation to the obligation to surrender certificates created from the installation of small-scale renewable energy systems.
Both shortfall charges encourage compliance with the Renewable Energy Target Scheme, as liable parties who do not meet their obligations to submit certificates from small-scale or large-scale renewable sources will need to pay a charge.
The level of the shortfall penalty will be monitored to ensure it remains effective as an incentive for investment in renewable energy.
Along with the two other related bills I am introducing today, this bill represents a major step toward the transformation of the Australian economy and the building of Australia’s low pollution future. I commend it to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Gray.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Small-scale Technology Shortfall Charge) Bill 2010 establishes a new act which, together with the related Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2010, implements changes to enhance the Renewable Energy Target (RET) Scheme to separate the existing scheme into two parts—the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target from 1 January 2011.
Combined, the bills further strengthen the government’s commitment to ensure that at least the equivalent of 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity is supplied from renewable sources by 2020.
This bill establishes a separate rate of shortfall charge at $65 per megawatt hour to encourage compliance with obligations to surrender renewable energy certificates created from installations of small-scale renewable energy technologies such as rooftop solar panels and solar water heaters.
The related Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2010 establishes a similar shortfall charge in relation to the obligation to surrender certificates created from large-scale renewable energy generation.
Both shortfall charges encourage compliance with the Renewable Energy Target Scheme, as liable parties who do not meet their obligations to submit certificates from small-scale or large-scale renewable sources will need to pay a charge.
The level of the shortfall penalty will be monitored to ensure it remains effective as an incentive for investment in renewable energy.
Along with the two other related bills I am introducing today, this bill represents a major step toward the transformation of the Australian economy and the building of Australia’s low pollution future. I commend it to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Byrne:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Information Commissioner Bill 2009 and the cognate bill, the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009. In 1976, Malcolm Fraser said:
If the Australian electorate is to be able to make valid judgements on government policy it should have the greatest access to information possible. How can any community progress without continuing and informed and intelligent debate? How can there be any debate without information?
Malcolm Fraser’s comment is not only incontrovertible but, surely, uncontroversial. In fact, it is extremely logical, but, as John Hartigan, the chairman and CEO of News Ltd, who quoted that very passage at a freedom of speech conference, pointed out:
30 years later, we are still waiting for the fulfilment of those ideals.
Freedom of information was designed to ensure that the community could have continuing, informed and intelligent debate. It gave people the right to know—to seek documents held by government ministers, their departments and most statutory authorities, as well as personal information the government holds on individuals. Government was to be open and accountable, available for all to see and scrutinise, but with some understandable specific exceptions, such as matters relating to security.
It has taken time for governments and the Public Service to adopt such an open, accountable attitude and to accept that information in the public sphere is not the enemy, that the information departments hold is not solely for their eyes and that the public should be able to ask for information without the spectre of interrogation and mistrust.
It was interesting to read an article in the Australian by Senator George Brandis, the shadow Attorney-General. Commenting on the development of this legislation, he said:
Access to government information was as much about the attitude of the public servants who administered the act. So Faulkner committed the Rudd government to the creation of ‘a pro-disclosure culture within government and the public service around the release of, and access to, government information [to] change the culture of FOI from one of resistance to one of disclosure’.
So, although black-letter law such as we are passing in this place today plays an important part in ensuring that the freedom of information policy can operate the way it was intended, also important is making sure there is a change of mindset and that ministers and everyone working in ministers’ offices and government departments understand that the public have a right to know and that intelligent debate cannot ensue if people do not have access to information, as Malcolm Fraser said in 1976.
But attitudes are changing, and the Public Service, led by ministers, has been increasing transparency. The ideals of freedom of information have been getting traction. Then Senator Faulkner, when Special Minister of State, proclaimed a new dawn for even greater transparency, pointing to these bills in front of us as just the start. My concern is that this dawn will never break. Some changes have been made in this legislation—that is true—to reduce the cost of freedom of information requests, but will the obstacles to obtaining relevant material remain firmly in place? That is the question that we all need to ask and the issue we all need to examine.
The freedom of information bill abolishes all charges for a person seeking access to their own information. Previously there was a $30 application fee plus decision-making time fees. All charges are now abolished where a person is seeking information about themselves. All other freedom of information application fees—that is, where applicants seek access to government documents—are also abolished. This has been quite a significant problem for many people seeking information, as I will outline in more detail shortly. The decision-making time fee, which is set out in schedule 5 of the regulations to the act, currently $20 an hour, is waived for the first hour of all requests. For journalists and not-for-profit organisations, the first five decision-making hours are charge free. The distinction recognises that journalists and NGOs in the pursuit of information to inform public debate or criticise the government may place wide-ranging or technical requests that require greater examination by the relevant department. To further enhance this bill, the five-hour charge-free provision should be extended to universities, historians, researchers, writers and, dare I say it, politicians. People undertaking these professions also add to the public debate and inform society. Perhaps they too should be allowed the same concessions.
Access time periods under the Archives Act are reduced by this bill as well. Commonwealth records can be accessed after 20 years, down from 30 years, and cabinet notebooks after 30 years, down from 50 years. Under division 2, certain information must also be published by an agency—that is, the structure of the agency, its functions and decision-making powers, senior officers, annual reports that are made available to parliament, information routinely provided to parliament, and how and when specific policy proposals can be commented on by members of the public. Overseeing the architecture and application of the Freedom of Information Act will be a new Information Commissioner.
The mentioned measures are logical additions and certainly have my support and, I expect, the support of most people in this place. But the pertinent question is whether the government is really committed to transparency; or is this mere decoration to hide the ugly truth? The government is required by the Freedom of Information Act to release an annual report. It did so nearly two months after the minister signed off on the report. It is disappointing that the report was released right at Christmas, when everyone was on holiday and somewhat distracted with Christmas festivities. You have to ask why. A cynic might say that it showed that under this government there has been less freedom of information. During the previous, coalition government, in the financial year 2006-07, 80.6 per cent of freedom of information requests were granted in full, but under this government, in the financial year 2008-09, that plummeted to 71 per cent. So people can be excused for feeling somewhat cynical about this.
Page 6 of the report reveals more curious statistics. The Australian Federal Police refused in full only 16.6 per cent of all freedom of information applications received, but the Civil Aviation Safety Authority refused 34.69 per cent. I am perplexed as to how the agency charged, in the interests of public safety, with regulations for aircraft and air traffic management requires more secrecy than an agency which undertakes surveillance, covert operations and counterterrorism activities.
Let me give the House a real-world example about freedom of information. Constituents in my electorate have complained to me about a dramatic change in aircraft noise. As a matter of fact, it is the subject of a national Senate inquiry at the moment. Flight paths were changed without open, public consultation and the ramifications for people in the electorate of Pearce were real: it devalued their properties, it destroyed the quality of life in an area that is quiet and peaceful up in the hills outside Perth and it has left many people sleep deprived, so naturally people are very angry about it.
In investigating why such a change happened without any open public consultation, I put a number of questions to Air Services Australia—the federal government owned corporation providing air traffic control management services to Australia’s aviation industry. They told me that the basis for the changes rested on a CASA report which made safety recommendations, and that was the impetus for the change. I met with Air Services Australia again and asked to view a copy of the report, but they refused. I wrote to the minister and asked for the report and I was refused that report. My only option then was to apply under freedom of information to CASA directly, after also approaching CASA for the report, and I therefore wrote a cheque and paid the fee for the information.
Some initial research on CASA’s and Air Services Australia’s websites revealed a discrepancy over which was the actual report that led to the changes, so in my FOI request I requested the report that led to the sudden changes to flight paths in 2008 and noted the report in question would make reference to CASA regulation part 172, which deals with safety management and air traffic services. The report that I received after paying the fee consisted of 10 pages, but when I received it, the vast majority was marked ‘deleted’. Only four sections with references to regulation part 172 were left, amounting to about 1½ pages.
Peter Cromarty, the Executive Manager of Airspace And Aerodrome Regulation, informed me in his covering letter that he decided to release the report with material ‘outside the scope’ deleted. I am quite puzzled as to how parts of the report could be ‘outside the scope’ when I requested the report itself. My reference to part 172 was used as justification to narrow the information provided to only the four sections specifically mentioning part 172 and deny access to the rest of the document as being outside my request. The report goes to the heart of the issue—that is, whether the change really was for safety reasons or not. As most of it was blacked out, seemingly ‘outside the scope’, the public would have every right to question the role of that document as the reason for changes to flight paths in Western Australia.
My experience highlights the overly legalistic approach so often applied to FOI requests. Requests can be read down to the black letter, minimising their apparent scope, thereby allowing the peripheral and often more enlightening supporting information to be excluded. That was certainly the case here. No wonder people feel cynical about the operation of freedom of information. The fact that this culture of secrecy exists is worrying in a democratic country. But the fact that this secrecy culture is growing when the Rudd government says it is increasing transparency is, frankly, alarming.
If members of this House are still not convinced of the problems faced by people seeking information, I would direct them to an informative article entitled ‘The minister is protected, but from what?’ by Mike Steketee in the Australian, published on 21 November 2009. In the article, Steketee details how Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute lodged a freedom of information request. He asked for the internal assessment of the limitations of the proposed emissions trading scheme from the department of climate change. After receiving nothing substantial, and having his application for an internal review rejected, he placed an FOI request regarding his initial FOI request.
The material uncovered is enlightening. For instance, Steketee reports that Neil Hughes, the director of the emissions trading division, rang Richard Denniss to confirm whether his request included material involving the minister. The answer was yes. But, later, Hughes circulated an email saying:
The secretary and deputy secretary have agreed the request does not refer to the minister, therefore ministerial briefing is now excluded from the request.
At another point, Steketee reports that Neil Hughes, a director of the emissions trading division, queried in a meeting, ‘how we can increase the charges, extend the deadline’. Such examples are not isolated. After the government’s failed National Broadband Network tender, Senator Nick Minchin lodged an FOI requesting documents. Previously the government had refused to release any documents, despite two Senate orders to do so. Senator Minchin then received a $23,851 bill to have the request processed. You did not hear me wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom: Senator Minchin—a senator in this place, in this Senate, in this parliament—received a $23,851 bill in order for his request under FOI to be processed. Freedom of information is certainly not free.
Open, accountable governance is one of the principles which underpin the very foundation of democracy. Without openness and accountability, our democratic system of governance is seriously compromised. Time and time again, from this parliament we have observed parliaments around the world who do not have open and accountable government and the havoc that wreaks on their citizens, in so many ways. As I always say when I am talking to students, democracy is a fragile flower and, if people stop taking notice of what is going on around them and cannot get access to information about what government is doing, it risks unpicking all of the principles that are the foundation of a democratically governed country.
The federal government talks about promoting a culture of transparency, and so far it has been just that—talk. Frankly, the Rudd government’s record, exposed through the records they must disclose under FOI, has shown transparency diminishing. Even where requests are allowed, the process is frustrating. If we in this place feel that frustration in the discharge of our duty to the public, how much more frustrated must members of the public feel? I think that is something for us all to reflect on: if we cannot get this information in the discharge of our duty, how much more frustrating is it for the average citizen out there trying to find out information, sometimes about their own record—sometimes to correct the record about their personal life? How frustrating it must be for members of the public, and how cynical it must make them.
Andrew Dodd’s Radio National program The Law Report on 20 October last year highlighted what I think would be common sense. On the program it was said:
I find it amusing that the department that has the responsibility for the national economy, cannot take credit card payment for an FOI request. In Queensland though, that’s changed with the new Act. You can lodge FOI right to know applications via the internet and pay over the internet. And that’s made life so much easier. It’s passing strange that government agencies are still being dragged reluctantly into the internet era, I find it interesting that they, for some reason, seem to do a lot of work with the internet and seem to have no problems, but when it comes to making life easier for FOI applicants, it doesn’t seem to have trickled down.
It has not trickled down to this place, to the federal government. The ability of a country’s citizens to seek and receive information is at the core of democracy, as I said. Open government guards against corruption. Information keeps governments accountable. But merely saying this does not make it happen. As I said before, we can pass all the legislation we want in this place, but if there is not a change of heart and mind then there are ways of escaping the responsibilities laid down in these acts of parliament, in the black-letter law.
There is a very obvious and widening gap between this government’s rhetoric and its performance. That is seen in a number of areas, and it is certainly being seen in relation to changes to the freedom of information legislation to make it more open and transparent. More and more, the government is withholding information. So I challenge all ministers: lead by example and encourage openness in your departments. There is no true democracy where there is no true open debate. And, as Malcolm Fraser so rightly says, ‘How can there be debate without information?’
I rise to support the Information Commissioner Bill 2009 and the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009, which together bring in the second stage of the government’s reform measures in this area and continue this government’s achievements in greater transparency and integrity in the structures and operation of our Australian democracy. In short, the measures contained in this legislation will make official government records available sooner, they will remove the cost burdens that previously existed in lodging freedom of information requests, they will make the FOI consideration process clearer and also subject to better oversight by the newly established Australian Office of the Information Commissioner, and they will extend the scope of the FOI Act.
The changes being made in these bills may not generate major headlines, but they will institute reforms that substantially improve the openness of government and its agencies and substantially improve the range and detail of information available to the public. In practical terms, these changes will include: a freedom of information request process that is simpler, more responsive, cheaper and less restrictive, with a single formulation of the public interest test and fewer exemptions from that test; an improved day-in, day-out operational approach to freedom of information by government agencies, with a requirement that such agencies provide certain information as a matter of course and in accordance with a publicly available, agency-by-agency freedom of information plan; and a greatly improved system of FOI supervision and oversight through the creation of the Office of the Information Commissioner, which will itself include three important information officers, namely, the Australian Information Commissioner, the FOI Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner;
The creation of an FOI Commissioner was one of the recommendations of the Open government report, which was the result of the review undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Administrative Review Council in 1996. Indeed, a number of the recommendations in that report are now, finally, introduced through this legislation, after the previous government failed to take action on them for 11 years, only to then initiate a second, narrower review of FOI laws in 2007. Those who suggest that this government is all review and no action might reflect on the Howard government’s record on FOI reform. Just like the national bioregional marine planning process, which was agreed to by the Commonwealth and the states in 1998 but then lay dormant for nine years, these important, long-recommended FOI reforms have had to wait for this government to come in to see the light of day.
With these changes, the inner working of government and of the public service, including those contracted and even subcontracted to provide services on behalf of the Commonwealth, will be made available more quickly, more easily and with greater process oversight to Australian citizens and to organisations, including media organisations, whose free and unfettered access to such key information is an essential part of the scrutiny that government should always be open to and an essential part of a well-informed and engaged electorate.
The votes of Australian citizens and their aggregate influence within our electoral system are cast on the basis of the information that is available to inform those votes. The quality of the information in the public sphere directly impacts upon the quality of the electoral outcome. For instance, Australian citizens should never have had to go to the polls in the mistaken belief that asylum seekers threw their children overboard. Every step we take to ensure that government and government agencies are open to the proper scrutiny of the public and of the media is both a step towards a higher quality Australian democracy and a step away from the dangers that are inherent in politically expedient secrecy.
The changes to the FOI Act not only improve the right of access to information sought by the public, which is perhaps the most commonly understood purpose of FOI laws, but also put in place new obligations on Australian government agencies to ensure that they proactively publish relevant information. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will be responsible for the compliance of government agencies in this regard, and agencies will be required to publish approved plans that indicate what information is to be made available to the public. Agencies will further be required to publish the details of an officer who will be the point of contact for public inquiries about information that can be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Exemptions that exist under the act to allow certain kinds of information to be withheld will be streamlined, with a revised single formulation of the public interest test and a requirement that any refusal upon the application of that test include release of the public interest factors assessed in reaching the decision to refuse access. Previously this requirement applied only to the internal working documents exemption. Some important exemptions, such as the national economy exemption, will now be conditional exemptions. That is, they will be subject to the public interest test, when previously they were strict exemptions. This is another example of a shift towards openness, of an emphasis on disclosure rather than on secrecy. Such a shift is also evident in the new approach to the cabinet exemption. As it stood, the FOI exemption covered all documents submitted to cabinet or that are proposed to be submitted. The amended exemption is limited to those documents prepared for the dominant purpose of submission to cabinet. It will now not apply as a matter of course to documents that were attached to an exempt document and the scope of the cabinet exemption has been clarified by the provision of specific details as to what the exemption covers.
The reforms in this legislation build on what was achieved through the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009, which commenced operation in October last year and had the effect of repealing the power to issue conclusive certificates. That means that all FOI refusals on the grounds of the exemptions that exist in the FOI Act and the Archives Act are subject to full independent external merits review. This legislation continues the stream of reforms introduced by this government with a view to strengthening Australian democracy and increasing the fairness and openness of our electoral and political system. This is one of the clearest points of difference between this Labor government and its predecessor. It bears repeating that the previous government massively increased the threshold for political donations that did not need to be disclosed, massively increased the taxpayer funded printing and communications allowance, used conclusive certificates as a means of avoiding freedom of information scrutiny and amended the Electoral Act to close off the rolls in a way that disenfranchised thousands of Australian voters.
By contrast, this government has delivered on its promise to address the issue of political donations and the undemocratic changes made by the Howard government to the donations and enrolment provisions of the Electoral Act, though unfortunately our efforts in this regard have at times been scandalously obstructed. We have delivered on our promise to establish a register of lobbyists and a ministerial code of conduct and to reduce the public funding of printing and distribution by members and senators and to abolish the use of conclusive certificates. Through the amendments contained in the legislation before us today, this government is reforming the system of access to information about government and its agencies in the interest of greater access, greater transparency and greater oversight. This legislation delivers categorically on the commitments made prior to the 2007 election in the Labor policy document titled Government information: restoring trust and integrity in government information.
Taken altogether, these things I have mentioned are structural improvements to the way in which our democracy works. They are done because this Labor government has a principled commitment to seeing these improvements made real. We have undertaken these achievements as a first-term government on a relatively small margin. We have implemented these reforms even though they are changes that in some cases increase the scrutiny and pressure that government can be subjected to and in other cases reduce the value of incumbency. They are certainly not changes for which the government has received or sought any great credit in the media or, I dare say, in the course of dinner table conversations in households around the country. But, like changes that increase the quality of the air we breathe, these are reforms that deal with the essential substance of Australian democracy, and they will deliver benefits that go right across the breadth and depth of government and public administration.
Finally, I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary and Special Minister of State for these bills and the important reforms they contain. I welcome this further instalment of the Rudd Labor government’s program of strengthening Australia’s democracy.
I rise to also put on the record some views on the Information Commissioner Bill 2009 and the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009. With many pieces of legislation that go through this place—and this is one such example—the theory and the words that we see in the paperwork are commendable and very hard to argue against in any form. However, it is a case of flagging, for anyone who is listening, that the proof in pieces of legislation such as this one is very much in the implementation and the commitment from those who late at night might be sitting behind a ministerial desk or an adviser’s desk with a potentially politically embarrassing freedom of information request before them. The question then is what decision is made by the individuals involved in the implementation of reform documents such as this one.
So by all means the changes to the object of the FOI Act are welcome but the test is yet to come with legislation passing this place. The test will come when the human discretion becomes involved at a later date, whether that is through an Information Commissioner, and the questions of who that person is; what their qualifications are; what authority—delegated or otherwise—they have; what reporting commitments they have to the parliament and to various ministers, prime ministers and parliamentarians; what genuine commitment to public disclosure that individual has; as well as the overall culture of government generally and departments specifically. The culture, mainly, in Canberra is not at this moment in time one of open disclosure and open government. I sincerely hope that this is a step in the development and the change of that culture to one as per the words, where open government is the starting point and we work back from there rather than open government being the last port of call in freedom of information requests and an open, transparent and therefore accountable democracy. So the general tone of these amendments—that information held by government is to be managed for public purposes and is a national resource—are expressed in fine words and fine sentiments, but I do flag that I certainly will be watching closely.
In this speech I will be raising a specific example where, if government are serious and genuine in their intent about reform, they will consider starting to put these words into practice immediately. The case in question I want to raise is in relation to the schedule 3 exemptions. Listing through the changes to the publication guidelines for Commonwealth agencies subject to this act, the new types of information that are included in the reforms are details of statutory appointments, operational information of an agency, and the publication of information in documents to which access is routinely given through FOI requests. This final requirement is qualified concerning the publication of information that concerns personal information about any individual, information about the business or professional affairs of any persons, or any other kind of information of a kind determined by the Information Commissioner through a legislative instrument that is deemed unreasonable to be published. This part provides for the new Information Commissioner to assist the agencies with their publishing obligations and to play the big brother type role. In reference to my previous comments, therein lies the question: just how hard and how often is this Information Commissioner going to press the button of open government rather than being subservient to the whim, the wishes or the potential embarrassment of individuals or departments?
Perhaps most importantly, the proposed 9A outlines that an agency, in performing its functions under this part of the act, must have regard to the revised section 3 object of the FOI Act and then the schedule 3 exemptions and the part 1 open-access periods. Open-access periods are when the National Archives of Australia must make available Commonwealth records other than exempt records to the public. Currently records other than cabinet notebooks are not available for 30 years and cabinet books are not available for 50 years. This part of the bill changes the Archives Act 1983 and brings forward these periods so that Commonwealth records are available sooner. Records other than cabinet notebooks will now be available for open access after 20 years, and cabinet books will be available within 30 years. That is, I think, an important step, but it does lead me to raise the specific issue before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal right now, which does directly sit at odds with the intent from government in this legislation and the language from government in this legislation.
The new single-form public interest test which is weighted towards disclosure and the 30-year rule sitting alongside the Archives Act is directly at odds with the Clinton Fernandes case and the paperwork that he is seeking through the 41 situation reports in relation to the East Timor independence events of 35 years ago. Even now the question of public interest is having to be tested by an individual who potentially is exposing himself to hundreds of thousands of dollars of court costs. But he is an individual doing it for the national interest, ironically with the Australian Government Solicitor acting for the National Archives of Australia seeking to block access to the contents of some of these 40 situation reports from that period, most on the grounds that they contain information the disclosure of which ‘could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth’. A couple of them are also deemed sensitive because they contain information sent as secret by other foreign governments. So not only is the Australian government now seeking to block disclosure to avoid ‘exceptionally grave harm to national security’; the government is also seeking to have the tribunal hearing held in camera on the grounds that even arguing why the documents are so sensitive would disclose some of the contents. This, remember, is about things that happened in 1975—35 years ago.
So Clinton Fernandes, who was a guest of mine when we had the Indonesian President here, is not a mad, raving loony; he is a defence analyst connected to the University of New South Wales. He was responsible for the East Timor desk, in a period when the independence movement in East Timor was on. He has, he assures me, seen most if not all of these 42 situation reports. And he assures me and others that these situation reports are not against the national interest. They may cause some political embarrassment, but if we are talking about a public interest test, if we are talking about open disclosure, if we are talking about political embarrassment not being a reason for withholding documents, then here is a real, live test case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that the Minister for Defence, John Faulkner, could override and release those documents and save a court process, the exposure of an individual and also genuinely demonstrate a commitment to public and open disclosure in the national interest. Somewhat ironically, it is the same John Faulkner who, to his credit, is the person who is largely responsible, with a lifelong commitment and a political commitment to freedom of information and public disclosure, for the formation and introduction of this bill—and I congratulate him for that. But the challenge now, directly to him, is that here is a real, live opportunity for him, today, to move in his capacity as Minister for Defence, on the release of these documents from 35 years ago, under the Archives Act—exactly in line, I would suggest, with the proposed legislation before the House today. Yet, in a court down the road, we have government acting completely at odds with the sentiments and the words that are contained within this document.
Going back to my opening comments, these are good words. This is a good piece of legislation. It is necessary reform. But when the human discretion and the human interest test becomes involved in public policy, we start to put the rubber on the road, the meat on the bone—and any other cliche that says the real test of whether governments and individuals within government are serious about these good words. We start to see whether these words mean anything. Unfortunately, at the moment, in a court down the road, they are not worth the paper they are written on. It would be great to see that turned around as a first and genuine example of a new era of open government from the Labor government, which talks about the importance of open government to democracy yet is doing the exact opposite in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal right now.
So there is my challenge for today, to the minister, to the government and to the advisors sitting in the boxes: let us see it. Let us maybe have some truth about what happened around 1975 debated in the open forum and the public court. Yes, it may cause some political discomfort for former prime ministers Whitlam and Fraser, but let’s bring it on—let’s get the story told and have an open and honest debate about events from 35 years ago; let’s start to learn the truth about those events; and let’s then start to drill down on how we build stronger relations between Indonesia, Australia and East Timor as a consequence of those events from 35 years ago. So I welcome the words. I welcome the legislation. I look forward to the action to back up those words and this legislation before the House today.
in reply—In summing up this particular piece of legislation I would like to welcome the contribution of all members to the debate. I would like to respond, however, to some of the comments made by the member for Stirling earlier in this debate. Senator Ludwig has acknowledged that the latest FOI annual report shows that the FOI Act is in need of reform. This is what makes the reforms in these bills so important. However, had the member for Stirling read the latest annual report, he would have found that the numbers do not always speak for themselves, and that some of the figures he quoted are not, as he said, evidence that there is less freedom of information under the Rudd government than there was under the Howard government.
The latest FOI annual report for 2008-09 does show that FOI access requests are slightly down on the previous year. This decrease can be explained by a decrease in the number of requests submitted to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, as DIAC is providing access to international movement records outside of the FOI Act. This is a change that should be welcomed. Departments are not requiring applicants to go through FOI but are giving them access through easier and less formal means. Refusal rates, we are told, were also slightly up. However, FOI requests for non-personal information have increased from 15 per cent in 2007-08 to 20 per cent in 2008-09, indicating that the FOI Act is being increasingly used to seek access to other documents, such as those concerning policy development and government decision making. Some of these documents just should not be released, as they relate to highly sensitive information such as matters of security or defence. This is one reason for the slight increase in refusal rates. I do not, however, think that the member for Stirling would ever suggest that such information should be given out, particularly in the national interest.
But let us turn to the reason we are here today: because the Rudd government is ushering in a new regime for access to government information. After over a decade of secrecy in the Howard government—which John Hartigan labelled the most secretive government we have ever had, even in war time—these reforms are critical and necessary. These reforms are a key aspect of the Rudd government’s policy to restore trust and integrity in government, and constitute the most significant overhaul of FOI since its enactment. The FOI Act is a cornerstone law in Australian government accountability legislation. These reforms will revitalise the FOI Act so that it provides a stronger foundation for more openness in government. Indeed, the proposed new objects clause for the FOI Act recognises that giving the Australian community access to government held information will promote Australia’s representative democracy.
Several witnesses in the public hearings conducted by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee expressed support for the reforms in the bill and urged their prompt enactment by this parliament. I should acknowledge, however, that there are some witnesses who would also prefer to see other measures such as the removal of more exemptions and exclusions. The government believes that these bills represent the right balance between meeting the public interest in disclosure of government information and in establishing those interests where a strong public interest lies in maintaining confidentiality of government held information. Together with the structural reforms proposed by the Information Commissioner Bill 2009 these bills aim to ensure that the right of access to documents is not unduly restricted by a liberal application of exemption criteria.
Provision is made in the bill for a review to be undertaken of the FOI Act two years from the commencement of the bill. The review will be comprehensive and include an examination of agencies exempted from the operation of the act.
I will, in summing up on this bill, mention two very significant changes to the FOI Act that will be effected by the FOI Amendment (Reform) Bill. The proposed new agency information publication scheme marks a significant change in the focus of the FOI Act. Instead of a framework that is largely reactive to access requests, the information publication scheme establishes a legislative framework for agency driven proactive publication of government information. This scheme goes further than establishing fixed classes of information for publication. Agencies will need to actively consider the information they hold, which can and should be made available to the public.
In another very significant change the period that the FOI Act governs access to government information will be reduced while accelerating the application of the Archives Act. The bill amends the Archives Act to bring forward the open access periods 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 are some of the more significant changes. This bill, together with the Information Commissioner Bill 2009, comprises a strong package of measures to enhance public access to government held information.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (21) as circulated, together.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (1) to (21) as circulated, together:
(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 8), omit “Information Commissioner” substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(2) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 5 and 6), omit the definition of Information Commissioner, substitute:
Information Commissioner has the meaning given by section 3A.
(3) Page 3 (after line 14), at the end of Part 1, add:
3A Meaning of Information Commissioner in any Act
In any Act:
Information Commissioner means the person appointed under section 14 of this Act as the Australian Information Commissioner.
(4) Heading to Part 2, page 4 (line 1), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(5) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 4 to 26), omit “Office of the Information Commissioner” (wherever occurring), substitute “Office of the Australian Information Commissioner”.
(6) Clause 5, page 5 (line 3), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(7) Clause 5, page 5 (line 5), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(8) Clause 5, page 5 (line 10), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(9) Heading to Part 3, page 11 (line 2), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(10) Clause 13, page 11 (lines 7 and 8), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(11) Heading to subclause 14(1), page 12 (line 3), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(12) Clause 14, page 12 (line 4), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(13) Clause 14, page 12 (after line 5), at the end of subclause (1), add:
Note: The Australian Information Commissioner is referred to in this and other Acts as the Information Commissioner (see sections 3 and 3A).
(14) Clause 23, page 16 (line 3), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(15) Clause 24, page 16 (line 13), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(16) Clause 25, page 16 (line 17), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(17) Page 18 (after line 24), at the end of Part 4, add:
27A Disclosure of interests
Disclosure to Minister
(1) A member of the Information Advisory Committee must give written notice to the Minister of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the member has or acquires and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the member’s functions.
Disclosure to Information Advisory Committee
(2) A member of the Information Advisory Committee must disclose to a meeting of the Committee the nature of an interest, pecuniary or otherwise, that he or she has in a matter being considered, or about to be considered, by the Committee.
(3) The disclosure must be made as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the Committee member’s knowledge.
(4) The disclosure must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee.
(5) Unless the Committee otherwise determines, the Committee member:
(a) must not be present during any deliberation by the Committee on the matter; and
(b) must not take part in any decision of the Committee with respect to the matter.
(6) For the purposes of making a determination under subsection (5), the Committee member:
(a) must not be present during any deliberation of the Committee for the purpose of making the determination; and
(b) must not take part in making the determination.
(7) A determination under subsection (5) must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee.
Information Commissioner
(8) This section does not apply in relation to the disclosure of interests by the Information Commissioner.
Note: The Information Commissioner, as an information officer, is required to disclose conflicting (or potentially conflicting) interests to the Minister under section 22.
(18) Clause 28, page 19 (line 5), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(19) Clause 30, page 20 (lines 22 and 23), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(20) Clause 34, page 23 (line 8), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(21) Title, page 1 (line 2), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, 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 26 November 2009, on motion by Mr Byrne:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The establishment of the Office of Information Commissioner, which is the primary purpose of this bill, is a centrepiece of the freedom of information reforms. The government recognises that the promise of better information disclosure requires independent oversight. The establishment of an Information Commission—an FOI commissioner—will introduce independent monitors into the FOI arena, which is an initiative long overdue. The commissioners will play an important role in delivering effective administration of the FOI Act. For that purpose they will have comprehensive functions, enabling them to address poor FOI practices as well as attitudes that are not conducive to the presumption of openness intended by the government’s FOI reforms.
This Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 will also bring together the independent oversight functions for privacy and FOI regimes into a single office. This measure will strengthen oversight capabilities and allow for consistency in these interconnected areas of information policy. The establishment of the Office of the Information Commissioner underpins the government’s objective to revitalise the FOI Act and also lays a stronger foundation for privacy protection and improvements in the broader management of government information.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (20) together.
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Schedule 4, item 34, page 52 (line 21), after “(items 3 and 4)”, insert “, or exempt under section 47 (item 2)”.
(2) Schedule 4, item 34, pages 52 and 53 (cell at table item 2, column headed “the access grant decision is …”), omit the cell, substitute:
a decision of an agency or Minister to give access to the document (or an edited copy of the document) because: (a) the document is neither exempt under section 47, nor conditionally exempt under section 47G; or (b) if the document is conditionally exempt under section 47G—access to the document would not, on balance, be contrary to the public interest for the purposes of subsection 11A(5). Note: Section 47 deals with documents disclosing trade secrets or commercially valuable information. Section 47G deals with other business documents. |
(3) Schedule 4, item 34, page 61 (line 7), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(4) Schedule 4, item 34, page 66 (lines 19 and 20), omit the note, substitute:
Note: See section 57A for the time within which the application for review must be made to the Tribunal.
(5) Schedule 4, item 34, page 70 (after line 25), after section 55D, insert:
55DA Decision-maker must assist Information Commissioner
In an IC review, the agency or Minister who made the IC reviewable decision must use the agency’s or the Minister’s best endeavours to assist the Information Commissioner to make his or her decision in relation to the IC review.
(6) Schedule 4, item 34, page 88 (line 6), omit “An application”, substitute “(1) An application”.
(7) Schedule 4, item 34, page 88 (after line 18), at the end of section 57A, add:
Time for applying to Tribunal if Information Commissioner declines to review decision
(2) Despite subsection 29(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, for the purposes of paragraph 29(1)(d) of that Act, the prescribed time for a person to lodge an application for review of an IC reviewable decision mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) of this section is the period:
(a) starting on the day on which the decision by the Information Commissioner under paragraph 54W(b) of this Act is made; and
(b) ending on the 28th day after the day on which notice of the decision under paragraph 54W(b) was given to the person under section 54X of this Act.
(8) Schedule 4, item 42, page 92 (lines 6 to 11), omit subsection (1), substitute:
(1) In proceedings under this Part for review of a decision in relation to a request, or in relation to an application under section 48 (a personal records application):
(a) if an agency or a Minister applied for the review—the agency or Minister has the onus of establishing that the decision is not justified, or that the Tribunal should give a decision adverse to the applicant in relation to the request or the personal records application; or
(b) if the applicant in relation to the request or the personal records application applied for the review—the agency to which, or the Minister to whom, the request or personal records application was made has the onus of establishing that the decision is justified, or that the Tribunal should give a decision adverse to the applicant.
(9) Schedule 4, item 49, page 96 (line 24), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(10) Schedule 4, item 49, page 101 (line 13), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(11) Schedule 4, item 50, page 113 (line 4), omit “given”, substitute “give”.
(12) Schedule 4, item 50, page 115 (lines 4 and 5), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(13) Schedule 4, item 58, page 119 (lines 3 to 6), omit the item.
(14) Schedule 5, heading, page 123 (line 3), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(15) Schedule 5, item 3, page 123 (lines 15 to 18), omit the item.
(16) Schedule 5, item 47, page 129 (lines 18 to 21), omit the item.
(17) Schedule 6, page 150 (after line 1), after the heading to Part 3, insert:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
41A After paragraph 49(1)(c)
Insert:
(ca) the Australian Information Commissioner holding office under the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010; and
41B Subsection 49(3)
Omit “or (c)”, substitute “, (c) or (ca)”.
(18) Schedule 7, item 1, page 153 (line 6), omit “Information Commissioner” (last occurring), substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(19) Schedule 7, item 3, page 154 (lines 20 and 21), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
(20) Schedule 7, item 3, page 155 (line 7), omit “Information Commissioner”, substitute “Australian Information Commissioner”.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, 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 24 February, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 before us today signals the final stages of what has been a long and complex process. This bill provides consequential amendments to what is a significant reform, being the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme. It is important that we consider the wider ramifications of the Registration and Accreditation Scheme that underpins this legislation before I comment on the specifics of the bill. There has been strong in-principle support for a nationally consistent registration scheme for health professionals. Different registration and accreditation requirements between jurisdictions has, in the past, hampered workforce mobility and made it difficult to monitor the small number of practitioners who have been under scrutiny or are facing disciplinary action in a given jurisdiction.
The guiding principles of the scheme are stated as, firstly, to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered; secondly, to facilitate workforce mobility across Australia and reduce red tape for practitioners; thirdly, to facilitate the provision of high-quality education and training and rigorous and responsive assessment of overseas trained practitioners; thirdly, to have regard to the public interest in promoting access to health services; and, finally, to have regard for the need to enable the continuous development of a flexible, responsive and sustainable Australian health workforce and enable innovation in education and service delivery.
The process commenced when the Productivity Commission recommendations came down in January 2006 for a single national registration board and a single national accreditation scheme. The previous coalition government acted on the recommendations by reaching an agreement at COAG in 2006 for the establishment of a national registration scheme. In April 2007, COAG agreed on a single National Registration and Accreditation Scheme to commence in July 2008. The health workforce underpins our health and hospital system. Health workforce issues have been prominent in political debate and in the media recently. I think it is important that we take the opportunity to revisit some of the facts. The coalition, whilst in government, delivered nine new medical schools, including in regional areas. There was a 50 per cent increase in medical school places between 2003 and 2007. Additional funding was provided in 2006 for some 605 additional medical school places being phased in from 2007 to 2011. The coalition government also provided 3,700 additional nursing places between 2005 and 2007 alone. It was the coalition that commenced funding for practice nurses through the Nursing in General Practice Initiative and later with additional MBS rebates. The coalition clearly is committed to improving the quality of Australia’s health workforce, despite this government’s best efforts to rewrite history.
Following the election of the Rudd government, the national registration scheme stalled and implementation has been delayed until July 2010. One of the primary reasons for developing a single national scheme for registration and accreditation was to reduce bureaucratic red tape across the jurisdictions. Unfortunately it seems, like in many policy areas of this government, there has been strong bureaucratic influence and interference with the establishment and proposed functions of the boards. Concerns still exist regarding the exertion of power by the ministerial council over national boards and, in particular, accreditation standards. The national law provides that the ministerial council may give directions to a national board for a proposed accreditation standard, or a proposed amendment of an accreditation standard.
The only caveat originally on the ministerial council providing accreditation directives was that the proposed standard or amendment would have a substantive and negative impact on the recruitment or supply of health practitioners. This understandably stirred up considerable concern amongst health professionals and patient groups. On the face of it, this provided health ministers with the authority to interfere with accreditation standards on the basis of workforce supply—should they be faced with a shortage, the concern was that they would be able to take shortcuts and lower the bar to increase workforce numbers. This provision did little for confidence in the safety and quality of health care in our country. It was only after the first Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry that a requirement was included for the ministerial council to give consideration to the potential impact of the council’s direction on the quality and safety of health care.
In fact, the committee explicitly recommended that the ministerial council consider the recommendations proposed by the Australian Medical Association in relation to this issue. The AMA recommendations included: defining ‘substantive and negative impact’; requiring the ministerial council to apply a public interest test that considers, amongst other things, the potential impact on the quality and safety of patient care; requiring the ministerial council to consult with the relevant learned medical college and faculties on best practice; requiring that ministerial council decisions to issue policy direction to national boards be unanimous; providing greater transparency of policy directives by providing justification and evidence for the decisions and publishing those decisions; and including specific provisions for review of directives.
Despite the committee’s and the AMA’s recommendations, the ministerial council has provided only a very limited response. A provision has been included for the council to first give consideration to the potential impact of the council’s direction on the quality and safety of health care. This falls well short of the calls of many stakeholders. Many stakeholders maintain there is a need at the very least for a public interest test for directives on accreditation standards. Without such, it is claimed that there will not be sufficient safeguards to protect patients under the current national law.
A number of professions, including physiotherapy and psychology, have experienced delays or expressed frustration at the process for specialisation recognition under the registration scheme. Physiotherapists argue that specialisation is well established and recognised within the profession. It is claimed that specialist physiotherapists, like recognised specialists in other health professions, have extensive additional training and experience qualifying them to assess and treat complex and high-risk patients. This includes formal postgraduate qualifications and a rigorous external training and examination process. The argument is that removal of specialisation title recognition will make the referral process much more difficult for patients with specialised needs and will not be in the public interest. Clearly, the process has not been without difficulty and there remain a great number of issues to be resolved before implementation in July this year. The bill before us today amends the Health Insurance Act to streamline the recognition of health professions under the registration and accreditation scheme. The Health Insurance Act allows for the recognition of specialists, consultants and GPs for access to Medicare.
There are a number of issues which have been identified by stakeholders and are evident in the Senate committee inquiry which is due to conclude its findings. The bill specifies requirements for consultant physicians and specialists to qualify for Medicare purposes. In addition to requiring medical specialists and consultant physicians to be registered in their speciality and recognition of the speciality for the purposes of the Health Insurance Act, this bill specifies that medical practitioners and consultant physicians satisfy any other requirements prescribed by the regulation. The provision does not relate to general practitioners or other health professionals for Medicare eligibility. It is argued that specialists and consultant physicians would already be required to be registered and on the specialist register to be eligible for Medicare benefits, and there seems to be little justification for creating additional requirements.
The bill also provides consequential amendments to section 19 of the Health Insurance Act relating to Medicare benefit ineligibility for medical practitioners that are not authorised to render certain services under the practitioner’s registration. The Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of GPs submit that there are a range of health professionals who are eligible for Medicare benefits. Accordingly, it is argued that the bill should be amended to extend the relevant sections to other health professions eligible for Medicare benefits.
Key nursing stakeholders have also raised some concerns regarding definitional amendments contained within the bill. Amongst other things, the bill removes the requirement that nursing care be given by or under the supervision of a registered nurse—it removes the word ‘registered’ from the definition. Whilst there can be different uses of the word ‘registered’ for nurses, it would seem appropriate that there remain clear lines of responsibility and accountability for nursing care.
The coalition understands the government is moving amendments to address a number of the issues discussed in relation to this bill. Whilst there have been extensive consultations throughout the national registration process, it does seem the government has again failed to do the groundwork for the basics on this consequential bill. It is becoming an unfortunate habit of the government to have to move amendments to their own bills because of oversights or lack of initial consultation. It is unfortunate, as I have pointed out, that the committee has recommendations which are pending, a report which is pending, but the government has not paid courtesy to that process or indeed to those people who have submitted evidence to that committee or indeed to the committee members. I hope that this process is able to provide to the government some lessons about the way in which they conduct their business and proceed with these amendments.
These are significant reforms and they impact not just on health professionals but of course on patients as well. The coalition, like the government and all Australians, wants to see a rigorous process put in place to make sure that the high standards that we have adopted for many decades in this country will remain long into the future. We want to make sure that health professionals right across the country in every profession increase their professional development and that we reduce the sorts of cases that we have seen operating in Queensland in recent times under what is a completely incompetent jurisdiction in the domain of the Queensland state government. We hope that the government will learn from this process. We hope that the government will have the ability to conduct these negotiations in a more consultative way into the future. There are unintended consequences. There is no question about that. Some of them have been ironed out and some will require amendment into the future. To be quite frank, it would seem rather unacceptable to have the Senate only with a day or so reporting potentially with further recommendations and the government not waiting to take those into consideration. Having spoken to a number of professionals in the health workforce around the country over the course of the last six or 12 months in relation to this issue, I have heard that they believe their views have not been heard. They have expressed their views strongly but they have not been heard by this government.
There is already a track record over the last couple of years of this government making lots of promises in relation to health but not having the capacity to deliver. Clearly, this is a government which promises a lot and has no problems in getting a headline but in the end just cannot deliver on the promises that it makes. Health is one of those areas and last night we have again seen that play out in the budget where the government has promised another 23 GP superclinics on top of the 36 already on offer. It has taken three years for this government to have two fully operational, yet that does not stop it from pretending that it is going to have another 23 rolling out some time, over the next couple of years or over the forward estimates, when I think it has proven to all Australians that it has a Prime Minister that does not have the capacity to deliver on his promises. Registration and accreditation is one such area where commitments have been made to the professions and again people have been let down. That is why there is a great level of frustration amongst clinicians and health professionals right across the board. I think there are certainly some lessons to be learnt from this and I hope that the government is able to take those away. As I have stated in my speech today, the coalition will not oppose the bill with the proposed amendments.
I speak in support of the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The member for Dickson mentioned GP superclinics. There is one in his electorate and he should care to have a look at it from time to time. He did not even turn up on the day when it was opened. There is one for my electorate too. It is about to be opened in August this year.
Unlike the previous government, we have not procrastinated on this issue of national registration as they did year after year—1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Eventually in 2005 a Productivity Commission report came down. They were in power all through that time and they should have known for a start that national registration and accreditation is an important factor in any profession, be it law, engineering, medicine or nursing, so any registration and accreditation should be recognised. If, for example, you live in Coolangatta or Tweed Heads it is simply a nonsense that there is not the same uniform national registration and recognition of professional qualifications. It is simply ridiculous to think that there is a notional dingo fence there. For a long time the coalition government did little. I admit that from 2007 onwards they took steps, as the Productivity Commission report came down, through the COAG process but it took them year after year to get there. If you had listened to the member for Dickson, you would think that they responded in March 1996 over this concern. They did not; they sat there and did nothing. This has been a long time coming. This is a landmark reform. This is very important. For years they blamed the states and territories. For years the current Leader of the Opposition constantly complained when he was the health minister about the states and territories. He would not meet them from time to time and in the end, before the last election, he had to simply admit that that was the case.
This legislation is important. The member for Dickson was a little disingenuous about that. He failed to recognise that we have taken up the mantle of national reform in this regard after years of failure by the coalition government. We recognise that this is important and that it was stalled but needed to be pursued. We immediately got down to discussing the issue with the states and territories and in March 2008 signed an intergovernmental agreement to progress the national scheme. As for what we are doing here today, 10 health professions are going to have national, consistent uniform standards for their workforces. This is really important stuff. I am sure that our founding fathers, when they created Australia as a federation many years ago, would not have thought about these issues but we know how important they are. All people, whether they live in Australia in Tweed Heads or in the Torres Strait, should get the same access to good and decent health care. We are going to make sure that there are health professionals in every part of this country. Whether you live in Perth, on the west coast, or in Palm Beach, on the east coast, you should have access to decent health care, high-quality and accessible health care, provided by doctors, nurses and other health professionals, such as physiotherapists and the like, who have uniform national standards of accreditation and registration. So this is an important national reform. Under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, the national arrangements for registration and accreditation will be implemented by the states and territories as part of their jurisdiction. We know that we had to get the cooperation of the states and territories because constitutionally that was required. The societies, associations and professional bodies that govern these professions are state based and so we have had to make arrangements with them.
The member for Dickson was very critical of the Rudd government and used his speech as an opportunity to attack the government for what they have done. I can tell him that in my electorate alone we have seen major changes and reforms in health and hospital funding due to assistance by the Rudd government since we got into power in 2007. For years, the Ipswich-West Moreton area was neglected by the Howard government, whether it was infrastructure funding, school funding or health and hospital funding. With the election of the Rudd Labor government, there were immediate improvements in the area of health funding, including after-hours clinics, surgery waiting lists and operating theatres in the Ipswich General Hospital. These are important changes, and they have been made by the Rudd Labor government. We have poured money into the Ipswich and West Moreton area in my electorate of Blair. For the member for Dickson to simply cast aspersions on the government’s credibility, authority and authenticity in health reform is, I think, a nonsense when I look at the record of the previous government. They failed miserably in this regard.
We are going to train 6,000 more doctors. The member for Dickson failed to note in his dissertation on health and hospital reform that the previous government ripped $1 billion out of the health system and capped GP training places. If he had been more active in relation to health and hospital reform when he was on ministerial leather, we would have seen more changes and better reforms in this area. Certainly in areas such as the Brisbane Valley, which I inherited from him following an electoral redistribution in Queensland, there is major need for further reforms and a better health system as well as further and better health funding for the Esk Hospital. The area of the Brisbane Valley was neglected under the tenure of the federal member for Dickson. We are working hard to improve health and hospital services in the Brisbane Valley, Somerset and Ipswich, after years of neglect by the coalition government.
This bill contains important changes and reforms. It is an amendment bill. Stakeholders have been listened to and amendments have been made to the bill by reason of this listening aspect of the Rudd Labor government. The member for Dickson said that we were not taking notice of stakeholders. We did take notice of the AMA and the nursing associations and nursing professions. Amendments have been made to the legislation before us. This bill is an amendment to the original bill in relation to national registration.
We took into consideration submissions made by the Australian Medical Association concerning issues of specialist and consultant physicians. Under the proposed legislation subsection (c) required that ‘he or she had to satisfy any other requirements prescribed by regulations in relation to the specialty’. The AMA did not have any problems with being registered in a specialty under state law. They did not have any problems about the specialty being prescribed in regulations made under the Health Insurance Act, but they did have problems with other requirements. The amendments in this bill clarify the purpose of the regulation making power in paragraph (c). The AMA also sought amendments, as the member for Dickson mentioned, to sections of the legislation governing the ability to render Medicare rebatable services. Again, we have listened to the concerns of the AMA and made amendments that address stakeholder concerns. We have widened the scope of sections 19C, 19CB and 19DA of the HIA, which apply to all health professionals that render Medicare rebatable services.
The member for Dickson talked about concerns raised by the nursing profession. Again, we have listened to what they have had to say about the definitions of ‘nurse’ and ‘nursing care’ and made amendments accordingly. This legislation is about making sure our system is nationally consistent. It is about making sure that where workforce shortages exist they are addressed. Where there is a need for social mobility of employment or there is a shortage of health professionals, these issues will be addressed. This legislation is about removing barriers or obstacles of a legal, constitutional and regulatory nature to people living in regional and rural communities—the kinds of communities that I represent in the federal electorate of Blair—having the health services that they need. Let us take locum health services as an example. In many small country towns there might be a hospital or one or two GPs, and it can be a challenge to get a locum in when a GP wants to go on holidays. National registration and accreditation improves the capacity and boosts the opportunity for these communities to get a locum in from interstate. It is very important that we make sure that doctors and health professionals can move across state borders.
This legislation is a very important reform. Streamlining specialist registration and recognition will improve the health system in this country. It will also improve it in regional and rural communities. It will make sure that we have a national approach to a national issue. It will also make sure that we end the duplication and the silly eccentricities of federalism that prevent a uniform system across the country. It will obliterate red tape. It will make sure that we have the same system across every state and territory in this country with respect to national registration and accreditation. There is more work to be done, but the government is getting on with the job of listening to stakeholders, making national reform, putting in money where there was no money, making sure that nurses and health professionals get trained properly and rolling out GP superclinics, even in the electorate of Dickson.
Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, as a doctor you will understand GP superclinics and you will also understand the disappointment that I feel because, after my electorate was promised one of the 36 superclinics almost three years ago, there is still no superclinic in Townsville and no prospect of one being started before the next election. That is very disappointing.
The Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 that the parliament is discussing today contains amendments to support the introduction and implementation of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions. It provides transitional arrangements for this scheme. It is a positive initiative, which will nationally streamline the recognition and registration of medical people working in medical professions. There are 10 healthcare professions that are involved: medical practitioners, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, osteopaths and podiatrists.
In July 2006 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to set up the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, and in March 2008 COAG signed an agreement to introduce the scheme by 1 July 2010. I observe here that in health things move very slowly indeed and the current health reforms being trumpeted by the government are also moving very slowly indeed. For example, the government announced that there would be a PET scanner based in Townsville—the first PET scanner in Queensland outside Brisbane. Of course it should be in Townsville, which is more than 1,000 kilometres from the state capital, but while the government said that we would get a PET scanner it did not say that we would not get it until 2013-14. The government should have made that clear, because there is an expectation in the Townsville community that a PET scanner is coming now.
Many health reforms do not take place other than in the out years, and I think people are going to be quite disappointed that, although there is all this trumpeting about wonderful healthcare reform, they will not see anything happen for several years yet. This is the cynic in me speaking, but when it finally does happen I reckon we are going to see more of the same. There will still be the waiting lists on elective surgery, and there will still be the problems in the emergency departments. We do not seem to be able to get a handle on how to fix these problems. Often they are to do with workforce issues, particularly in the public system. One of the fundamental things that the government will not address is the workforce issues and the terrible inefficiencies that occur in the health system because of them. I will give you an example, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know somebody who was called into one of the operating theatres at the Townsville Hospital on the weekend and there were 14 people in the theatre being paid overtime. They did not know what to do with themselves. There was no work for them, but they still had to be in the theatre, whereas if the same operations were taking place in the Mater hospital there would be three people in the theatre and they would do twice as many procedures. That is the kind of sickness that is in the health system.
In November 2008, Queensland was the first state to pass a law, the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Act 2008, to deal with the issues at hand. The state then passed a law allowing a national scheme to be put in place. A national approach on this issue is important; however, the scheme has raised several contentious and important issues. There have been legitimate concerns raised in the debate, particularly by some of the key stakeholders, and the government must listen to these concerns from people who are directly involved in providing health care to Australian patients.
One of the provisions of the national registration and accreditation scheme is for mandatory reporting by healthcare professionals themselves. A medical professional seeking personal treatment would have to have this treatment reported. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has expressed strong concern—and I think that is understandable—that this may lead to healthcare professionals hiding their own medical conditions, which may in turn pose a great risk to patients. That is something that we should think about deeply.
The AMA has its own concerns about this bill, particularly about two of the provisions relating to requirements for medical professionals. As well as being recognised as a specialist by the state or territory where they practice, they will also be required to satisfy ‘any other requirements prescribed by the regulations’. The AMA has quite rightly pointed out that this is an unnecessary extra requirement, as the medical professions are already registered. This is symptomatic of what we seem to do to ourselves: layering on this regulation and red tape and so on. Year by year it gets harder and harder, and people ultimately find that it is too much.
The AMA has also raised an issue regarding Medicare benefit ineligibility. If a medical professional provides a service outside their authorised practice, they will be ineligible for Medicare benefits. I do not understand that. This provision is specific only to medical professionals. Why? Ten healthcare professions are identified by the scheme, yet only medical professionals are subject to this requirement. The AMA has argued that this provision should therefore apply to all health professions who would receive Medicare benefits, and that seems sensible.
The bureaucracy involved in this scheme is a big concern. If bureaucrats get overinvolved and end up dictating to health boards during the implementation of the scheme, we will lose the focus on providing better health care. That alarms me. That I am raising this concern should not come as a surprise, because the Rudd government has only one approach to Australia’s healthcare system, and that is to increase the layers of bureaucracy. Just last night in the budget we saw Mr Rudd spend an extra $500 million on more health bureaucracy. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan promised the Australian people that they would not increase health bureaucracy. They broke that promise last night, and none of the $500 million will go towards hospital services.
When the Prime Minister trumpets his healthcare agreement, he does not tell the Australian people about all the layers of bureaucracy in his plan, but when you look at it there are so many levels and departments. Not only are there 11 Commonwealth and state health departments and area health services but also now Labor is going to establish more agencies: the National Health and Hospitals Network Fund, the hospital pricing authority, the National Performance Authority and local hospital networks. Of course, ‘local hospital networks’ is a misnomer. The government has given communities around Australia the expectation that there will be a local hospital boards, but that is not right. There will be local hospital networks, but they will not be for individual hospitals.
The coalition, however, welcomes extra investment in health. It is vital that health care in Australia receives the reform and support it needs. However, under the Rudd plan all this new funding will have to go through all the different layers of bureaucracy before even coming close to those who need it the most: the patients. We know that Queensland Health, for example, is a Soviet style bureaucracy. It is so difficult and wastes so much money and, of course, the customers do not see the results of that expenditure.
Since 2007 Kevin Rudd has let down Australians in a whole host of areas. This broken health bureaucracy promise is just one of those—I can also think of GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch and the pink batts Home Insulation Program. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, he promised to build 36 GP superclinics. Here we are in 2010 and only two of these have become fully operational. I do not believe the government when they say they will build another 23 clinics. If they cannot deliver on the first 36, what will be the fate of the next 23?
In Townsville, we are still waiting. I am hopeful—the proponent who won the right to operate the superclinic in Townsville is a very, very good operator and is very much into patient care. But the results speak for themselves. There is no GP superclinic in Townsville and there is not likely to be one for at least another year. It is very disappointing when the public are given the expectation that the Rudd government will deliver but then it does not. Is it surprising to any of us that the Prime Minister gets tagged with the phrase ‘All talk and no action’ when that is the reality? However, I will be supporting the bill and thank the parliament for the opportunity to speak about it.
I rise to support the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. This bill supports the implementation of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions. With this bill, for the first time there will be a national system for the registration and accreditation of 10 health professions, bringing consistency and uniform standards to our health workforce. I suspect that most Australians who may be listening today would be surprised that these 10 health professions are not already covered by a national registration scheme, as they are the most common of the medical professions: medicine, nursing and midwifery, pharmacy, physiotherapy, psychology, osteopathy, chiropractic, optometry and dental care—including dentistry, dental hygiene, dental therapy and dental prosthetics—and podiatry. These are quite common medical services that currently are covered by different registration systems in each of the states and territories.
In addition, the health ministers have agreed that from 1 July 2012 some additional areas will be covered, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners, Chinese medicine practitioners, occupational therapists and medical radiation practitioners—all will be regulated under the scheme. The scheme will modernise the regulation of health professions by creating a single regulatory environment, ending the duplication of effort and red tape caused by separate systems in each state and territory. The scheme will create a single national register, so any suspension of rights to practice or conditions on registration or deregistration will apply simultaneously in all states and territories. Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have already passed the bills which will put in place the national system, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory have introduced their bills and South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia are well advanced in their planning.
National registration has been a very long time coming. It was identified as an issue many, many years ago. In fact, way back in 1992 attempts were made to simplify registration and regulation process. The Mutual Recognition Act 1992 was one such cooperative attempt by the state, territory and federal governments to introduce some kind of uniformity. The act allowed individuals registered to practise an occupation in one jurisdiction to obtain registration to practice an equivalent occupation in another participating jurisdiction. Yet, in spite of that move—and it was a very important one at the time—there continued to be calls for central regulation. Reasons cited in support of reform have ranged from the ability of practitioners to move more easily between jurisdictions to safety and quality considerations—both very important considerations.
The register has been a very long time coming. The previous government, with the current Leader of the Opposition as the Minister for Health and Ageing, identified national registration as an urgent priority some years ago. Then, in December 2005, the Australia’s health workforce report by the Productivity Commission recommended the establishment of a single national registration board for health professions as well as a single national accreditation board for health professional education and training. This move was seen as a means to help deal with workforce shortages and pressures faced by the Australian health system. This was a very important recommendation which was not acted on at the time.
When the Rudd government came to power it identified national registration as an urgent priority that had been held up far too long and needed urgent action. This was one thought bubble that Mr Abbott had back in his time as health minister that really did need practical implementation quickly. We immediately got to work with the states and territories and in March 2008 signed an intergovernmental agreement to progress to the national scheme. The bill we are debating today brings that scheme into effect. Yet still we have calls for delay from the opposition. The member for Dickson this morning said we should wait for the Senate inquiry to bring down its findings. The member for Dickson is not keeping up. The Senate inquiry reported yesterday and the House will note that amendments have already been circulated that deal with the concerns raised in that report.
We know that the national scheme will reduce red tape, increase standards and improve safety for the Australian community. We also know that a national scheme will improve the mobility of the health workforce. It will stop health professionals from having to re-register as they cross borders, saving time, money and inconvenience. It will help boost locum support for rural doctors as doctors become freer to move around the country.
On 3 November 2009, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 in Queensland received royal assent in the Queensland parliament. The national law set out the framework for the scheme, covering registration of health practitioners and accreditation of health education and training, complaints, privacy and information sharing, and transitional arrangements. The Commonwealth does not need to apply the act for national law; however, consequential and transitional amendments are required to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to ensure that medical practitioners continue to retain the same Medicare billing eligibility from 1 July 2010. The bill streamlines the extensive systems involved in registration and recognition of medical practitioners for Medicare purposes, ensuring reduction of red tape, and helps to maintain the currency of the Health Insurance Act 1973 regulations and adequate access to Medicare rebates and retention of practitioners in Australia.
The member for Herbert was quite scathing of the government’s attempts to reduce regulation, saying that these are not matters for patients. But I think the member for Herbert, if he thinks about it, will realise that for every minute that health practitioners spend dealing with government regulation they are not with their patients. Reducing regulation in small business, in health professions around the country, as this government has been doing, dramatically increases the capacity of professionals to do what they are trained to do rather than administer.
The current pathways to specialist, consultant physician and GP recognition in the Health Insurance Act 1973 necessitate communication exchange between Medicare Australia and relevant organisations, such as medical colleges, to ascertain Medicare eligibility. These arrangements have been put in place because previously there was variation across states and territories for the recognition of specialist qualifications and general practice qualifications in the registration process.
The national registration and accreditation scheme provides a nationally consistent means of identifying both specialists and GPs, and the mandatory requirement for continuing professional development in the scheme means that Medicare Australia is no longer required to monitor whether practitioners providing a Medicare rebateable service are meeting continuing professional development requirements. It is essential that the extensive systems involved in registration and recognition of doctors for Medicare purposes are streamlined to ensure the reduction of red tape. The currency of the health insurance regulations and the efficient access to Medicare rebates depends on that.
The Health Insurance Act 1973 provides various pathways for recognising specialists, consultant physicians and general practitioners for Medicare purposes. This bill provides an opportunity to streamline current specialist recognition processes under Commonwealth legislation. This includes removing the current vocational register of general practitioners, particularly now that the Medical Board of Australia has recommended that health ministers endorse general practice as a specialty for the medical profession. The bill will not disadvantage medical practitioners that are currently registered in states and territories. In particular, it will not disadvantage any GPs that are currently on the vocational register whether or not they have a fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners or the Australian College of Remote and Rural Medicine. Streamlining specialist recognition will also facilitate workforce mobility and access to Medicare for international medical graduates.
The National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions will modernise the regulation of health professionals by creating a single regulatory environment. By ending the duplication of effort, multiple standards and red tape caused by separate systems in each state and territory, we will have a more workable registration scheme for Australian patients and practitioners that also contributes to improving the safety of our health system for all Australians. It provides the community with reassurance that health professionals across Australia will meet a common set of standards. Our health workforce will also benefit from the improved mobility and transparency the national scheme will offer. I look forward to the implementation of the national registration and accreditation scheme for the first time in Australia—a scheme that, for the first time, introduces national recognition for these important medical practitioners. This is an important piece of health reform work and I am very pleased to be commending it to the House.
The registration of health professionals in Australia has been done at a state level. This has always led to problems when people move between jurisdictions, so as a result the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 provided that when someone was recognised in one jurisdiction they could apply to practice in another jurisdiction, in another state or territory. Following the case of Dr Patel in Queensland and, in the United Kingdom, the case of Harold Shipman, there has been enormous interest in improving the system of registration of health professionals in this country. Unfortunately, the national registration scheme that we have here now will do nothing to enhance patient safety; it will do nothing to enhance professional quality.
The Productivity Commission in December 2005 recommended a single national registration board, a single national accreditation board. COAG agreed to this in 2006. And so it was agreed that we move to a national registration and accreditation scheme for the health professions. It is done by way of each state passing a law. Queensland has provided the template for the national law, which has so far been passed by not only Queensland but also New South Wales and Victoria and is in train in other states and territories. The bill we are considering here, the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, is to ensure that medical practitioners and those health practitioners who are entitled to Medicare have the same Medicare billing eligibility. So in that sense the legislation is really tidying it up from the federal point of view. It is really the framework which is being provided from a state point of view.
A number of professional organisations—the Australian Medical Association, the Committee of Presidents of Medical Colleges, and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners—have raised the concern that national registration will not enhance patient safety. One of the problems with the model that has been put before us is that it entrenches government interference, it bureaucratises the whole process and we will now have a remote and centralised body which will be responsible for the registration of 10 health professions with more to come in two years time.
The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee have already looked at a draft of this legislation and suggested a number of changes which have been adopted: to make sure the accreditation functions are independent of the government, to make sure that there is a general and a specialist register—something which is already well established with the state registration boards—to maintain a separate register for nurses and midwives, and to ensure that there is a role for continuing professional development in registration.
Those changes have been taken up, but there is remaining concern about the independence of the accreditation. The issue is the role which is played by the ministerial council. What has previously been an independent role performed by state registration boards governed by respected professionals will now be taken on by ministers—by politicians. I am concerned about what will happen when the health minister has to weigh safety and quality concerns against the issue of workforce supply. I am also concerned over the role of the ministerial council. The Senate committee recommended that the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council consider and evaluate its role in issuing policy directions or accreditation standards. That recommendation has not been taken up in this legislation. The scheme will do nothing to enhance professional standards or quality of care for patients.
Like everything this government touches, the devil is in the detail. One of the issues we face is that we rely on overseas trained doctors to staff our hospitals and medical practices, especially in areas of need, especially in rural and regional Australia. The issue here is what our minister will do in weighing dealing with area of need, filling a gap, against looking at whether someone is up to scratch in professional standards. One suggestion that the AMA has put forward is that there be a public interest test for the federal Minister for Health and Ageing when considering issuing directions on accreditation standards.
Another concern is the reserve powers in this legislation which allow the minister to impose additional requirements on consultant physicians and specialists to obtain provider numbers for Medicare benefit purposes. This really needs to be clarified by the minister. We need clarification of the circumstances in which she can see these reserve powers being used. We need the minister to explain the need for these reserve powers and what the constraints on the minister using them will be. This legislation shifts the responsibility for issuing Medicare provider numbers from the parliament to the minister. We need an explanation of why that measure has been adopted. It has not been the practice in the past. In the past, the issue of Medicare provider numbers has been, appropriately, the subject of legislation. It has been brought before the parliament rather than being the decision of an individual minister.
Those are the concerns I have about this legislation. I do not believe that the national registration scheme will enhance patient safety or do anything to improve professional standards. On the contrary, it will entrench government interference and bureaucracy in all of the independent health professions.
Before I start, I have been asked by Luch, who looks after us so well here with water and so forth, to acknowledge that his daughter and her class members from Mary MacKillop high school are here in Canberra today watching us. On behalf of a very proud father: Jessica, welcome to you and your schoolmates. I hope you enjoy today’s proceedings.
Health reform is well and truly one of the most important issues of our time. I am delighted to say this government is providing the leadership that is needed on health reform. Leadership, especially in the area of health, is a concept that was obviously absent when those on the other side were in government. When the current Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Health and Ageing he ripped a billion dollars out of the health system, seeing that as some kind of reform. Clearly, we take a very different approach on this side of the parliament.
I rise to support the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The bill supports the implementation of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professionals. This will mean that, for the first time, there will be a national system for registration and accreditation in 10 health professions, bringing consistency and uniform standards to our health workforce. Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have already passed bills which will put in place the national system. The ACT and the Northern Territory have introduced their bills, and South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia are well advanced in their planning.
National registration has been a very long time coming. Under the previous government, the current Leader of the Opposition as the Minister for Health and Ageing identified this as a goal and then decided to sit on his hands. After years of blaming the states and territories for all the problems in the health system, he was unable to work with them to deliver this key health reform. On the other hand, this government is delivering this key health reform. Just as the opposition leader sat on the sidelines while 60 per cent of Australians suffered from a shortage of doctors, he dithered on this important health workforce reform. The Rudd government recognized that this goal was one that had stalled and needed to be pursued. We immediately got to work with the states and territories and, in March 2008, signed an intergovernmental agreement to progress the national scheme. We know that a national scheme will reduce red tape, increase standards and improve safety for the Australian community. We also know that a national scheme will improve the mobility of the health workforce. It will stop health professionals from having to reregister every time they step across a state border, saving time, money and inconvenience. This will, for example, help boost locum support for rural doctors as doctors become freer to work across state boundaries.
As I have said, the health reforms that this government are committed to constitute one of the most important issues of our time and of our generation. In my area of New South Wales—the Central Coast—health reform is an issue we do not take lightly. I have been campaigning strongly for the Central Coast to have its own truly local area health network. Currently we are part of a larger Northern Sydney system, which is clearly not suitable for our region. We need to have a health system that caters to the Central Coast’s people rather than one that is spread out over such a large geographical area. The priorities of our health system need to be in our region and not elsewhere—a system that is funded federally but run locally.
The government is delivering a GP superclinic in the northern area of my electorate of Dobell, which has the full support of not only the local community but also the Division of General Practice, the University of Newcastle, the area health services and doctors generally in the area. It also has the support of high schools. I mention this because MacKillop College, a college of the same name as that of the students who are here in parliament today, is in my electorate. It is next to this college that the GP superclinic is to be built. It is planned that this superclinic will have high standards of training. Students from the school and others in the area will be able to participate in training at the superclinic. Once the new superclinic is fully operational in the Warnervale area, it will employ more than 100 health professionals. It will take demand off the emergency department at Wyong Hospital, which is now the fourth busiest in the state. Already there are nearly 2,000 patients on the books of the temporary GP superclinic, which reflects the need for additional doctors in our areas, particularly in this area, where there is a growing number of new families moving to the Central Coast.
To further alleviate the pressure on emergency departments, including the one at Wyong, the budget outlined by the Treasurer last night, as we now know, allocates new money towards limiting the time in which patients will be seen to in an emergency department to only four hours. This will be done by increasing the capacity of the emergency departments. Through the budget, the government is acting to ensure that more Australians can more easily access appropriate health care by making a strategic investment to support and recognise the work of practice nurses. As part of the government’s nursing package, $390.3 million will be provided to better support practice nurses and for the first time provide funding to GPs in urban areas to help employ practice nurses. Annual incentive payments of $25,000 per full-time GP for a registered nurse and $12,500 per full-time GP for an enrolled nurse will be made available to eligible accredited general practices.
The government will transform the way Australians with long-term illnesses are treated, starting with improving health outcomes for the nearly one million Australians living with diabetes, too many of whom end up being treated in hospitals unnecessarily. The government is committing $449.2 million to improve care for people with diabetes. For the first time, Australians with diabetes will have the option of signing up with a GP practice. The practice will be responsible for managing all aspects of their care and will be paid, in part, for keeping patients healthy and out of the hospital system.
Through these key reforms, this government is committed to delivering better health outcomes for all Australians. The 2010-11 budget will deliver a massive $1.2 billion boost to GP and primary health care, including $355.2 million to build and upgrade GP superclinics. This will honour the Rudd government’s commitment to deliver real improvements in front-line health services for patients across Australia. The Rudd government will upgrade around 425 primary care facilities and GP superclinics and construct around 23 new dedicated GP superclinics. This strengthens the Rudd government’s $275.2 million GP superclinic program, which is delivering 36 GP superclinics across the country, including in my electorate. As I have mentioned, GP superclinics take pressure off public hospitals, provide better integrated and more accessible care, help attract health professionals to areas of need and give health professionals the option of more training in these particular facilities. Of the new GP superclinics, around nine will be large clinics where doctors, nurses and allied health professionals will be supplemented by more specialised services such as renal dialysis, minor surgical procedures, rehabilitation services and radiology. The remaining new GP superclinics will be built along the lines of the 36 clinics already under construction. By providing patients with more convenient one-stop shops, the government will help and encourage patients to get the primary care they need to stay fit and well, particularly if they suffer from chronic illnesses.
Three types of funding will be available to help existing general practices expanded their facilities, with grants of up to $500,000. These larger grants will be available to those practices that also establish teaching facilities. Additional services will be made available as a result of the infrastructure investment, with space made available in GP clinics for allied health services; group education, such as diabetes management; counselling; and community health promotion. This injection into GP superclinics builds on the additional primary care being committed to by the Rudd government, including funding for a record number of GPs, more support and training for around 4,600 practice nurses and a new innovative approach to improving the treatment of diabetes in GP practices. These infrastructure investments are part of the government’s move to take over full funding of and policy responsibility for primary care. Through the National Health and Hospitals Network, the Australian government is taking full responsibility for funding all general practice and primary healthcare services. The Commonwealth government will continue discussions with the states and territories to finalise the scope of services included in the takeover by the end of 2010.
Our region—the Central Coast—is ideal for a Local Hospital Network which will be run locally and funded federally. I will continue to fight for that outcome. My constituents take their health very seriously. That is why there is a rising tide of community opposition to plans for a large longwall coalmine in the valleys of Wyong Shire in my electorate. People not only know that there is a major risk to the region’s water supply because of the planned mine’s location in relation to the water catchment but also are worried about potential health risks. The proposed coal loader for the mine is to be located in one of the fastest growing areas of my electorate, which is popular with young families moving to the coast for the clean air and outdoor lifestyle. I am fighting against the coalmine because of the ongoing concerns about health outcomes linked to coalmining in general and, in particular, the problems they have experienced in the Hunter, just north of me. They did not move to these areas of the Central Coast to have their health and their children’s health affected by coal dust from thousands of tonnes of coal moving through their neighbourhoods. I am determined to stop that coalmine.
The bill I am speaking on today is an important part of the government’s major agenda of health reforms. On 3 November 2009 the Queensland Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 received royal assent. The national law sets out the framework for the scheme covering the registration of health practitioners and accreditation of health education and training, complaints, privacy and information sharing, and transitional arrangements. The Commonwealth does not need to apply the act for national law; however, consequential and transitional amendments are required to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to ensure that medical practitioners continue to retain the same Medicare billing eligibility from 1 July 2010. It also streamlines the extensive systems involved in registration and recognition of medical practitioners for Medicare purposes, ensuring the reduction of red tape, and helps to maintain the currency of the Health Insurance Act 1973 regulations and adequate access to Medicare rebates and retention of practitioners in Australia.
The current pathways to specialist, consultant physician and GP recognition in the Health Insurance Act 1973 necessitate communication exchange between Medicare Australia and relevant organisations, such as medical colleges, to ascertain Medicare eligibility. These arrangements have been put in place because previously there were variations across states and territories for the recognition of specialist qualifications and general practice qualifications in the registration process.
The national registration and accreditation scheme provides a nationally consistent means of identifying both specialists and GPs. The mandatory requirement for continuing professional development in the scheme means that Medicare Australia is no longer required to monitor whether practitioners providing a Medicare rebateable service are meeting continuing professional development requirements. It is essential that the extensive systems involved in registration and recognition of doctors for Medicare purposes are streamlined to ensure the reduction of red tape, the currency of the health insurance regulations and efficient access to Medicare rebates, as we have noted before.
The Health Insurance Act 1973 provides various pathways for recognising specialists, consultant physicians and general practitioners for Medicare purposes. This bill provides an opportunity to streamline current specialist recognition processes under Commonwealth legislation. This includes removing the current Vocational Register of General Practitioners, particularly now that the Medical Board of Australia has recommended that health ministers endorse general practice as a specialty for the medical profession.
This bill will not disadvantage medical practitioners who are currently registered in states and territories. In particular, it will not disadvantage any GPs who are currently on the vocational register whether or not they have a fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners or the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine. Streamlining specialist recognition will also facilitate workforce mobility and access to Medicare for international medical graduates.
The National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions will modernise the regulation of health professionals by creating a single regulatory environment. By ending the duplication of effort, multiple standards and red tape caused by separate systems in each state and territory we will have a more workable registration scheme for Australian patients and practitioners that also contributes to improving the safety of our health system for all Australians. It provides the community with reassurance that health professionals across Australia will meet a common set of standards. Our health workforce will also benefit from the improved mobility the national scheme will offer.
It is important to note that much effort has gone into where we are today with this bill. Much credit should go to all of the professional groups who have constructively engaged in an incredibly complex task over the last four years. This includes the current state and territory health professional boards, which have faced enormous change. We should also recognise the expertise and hard work of the officials who have undertaken the work that is making national registration a reality.
We should also thank the state and territory governments around the country, who are all committed to a national scheme for the registration of health professionals and have put the national interest first in supporting this change. We now look forward to the national law being adopted in the remaining jurisdictions over the coming months and the implementation of the national registration and accreditation scheme for the first time in Australia. I commend this bill to the House.
The bill introduces a national system for the registration and accreditation of about 10 health professions. It brings about consistency across borders in Australia and uniform standards to our health workforce. People always talk about having cooperation across the borders at the state and territory level. It sounds easy and sounds like it can be delivered in a straightforward way, but we know from experience and practice that it is not so easy to do and it does take not only skill and competency but political will to make it happen. A lot of things get put into the too-hard basket when we are looking at national standards, national schemes and national accreditation, which I will cover more later.
When the bill was introduced into this place on 24 February the minister said that Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria had already passed bills which put in place the national system. She further said that the ACT and the Northern Territory had introduced bills and that South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia were well advanced in their planning. I hope the minister is able to give us a status update in her summation. Again it is well done that all states and territories are on board to make sure we have this national scheme.
The previous government’s Minister for Health and Ageing, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, identified this as a goal. He knew it was a problem to be fixed and then did nothing. He sat on it. That is right, he did nothing. Now he runs around proclaiming to be a man of real action. What nonsense. Any time he had to take action of any kind he shied away, except of course action that disadvantaged workers such as introducing Work Choices.
The Leader of the Opposition was not able, or not willing, to introduce these reforms. It requires a lot of policy energy, and not just policy energy directed at opposing and saying no, because it was not their idea, and running fear and smear campaigns, which is part and parcel of their modus operandi. You have to have the policy nous and the political will to start to address the challenges that face our health system. And I have to say that the then health minister, now Leader of the Opposition, never had the ticker to do it. Sixty per cent of Australians suffered from a shortage of doctors and that was put into the too-hard basket too. Worse than that, the previous health minister, now Leader of the Opposition, actually froze the number of GP training places.
This bill is about health workforce reform. It was an area that had been neglected. In March 2008 the health minister and the states and territories signed an intergovernmental agreement to progress this national scheme. That was the Council of Australian Governments working for us. A lot of people wonder about the Council of Australian Governments, or COAG, as it is called. They hear discussion about it, they hear about it in the media and they hear members of parliament talking about it, but it can seem a bit remote to them. But through the political will of governments and goodwill on all sides COAG actually works for us, and this is an example of it working for us.
In short, this national scheme will do a number of key things. It will increase standards and, particularly with health, we can never have enough of those, and it is better that they be national standards. When we have standards that operate in a certain way because of a border, differences in each state can be really difficult. Having a national standard means that we can also raise the standards and bring them to a better benchmark and a better mean and we can always bring them up to the best standard that exists across the country. Again, I know that can be hard to do, but that is how it can work. It could also reduce red tape, and that actually has an impact on health service delivery and safety.
There is a fourth benefit. It also improves the mobility of the health workforce. Anything that can improve the mobility and the ability of the workforce is a good thing, and certainly for rural health service delivery. In practice, it means that health professionals will not have to re-register every time they step across a state or territory border. That saves time, money and inconvenience, and it means that some practitioners will go to other places to work.
From my personal experience as a registered solicitor trying to register in another state, I know that it can be very complicated. I once had a situation where by the time I got the papers the time had expired for me to physically lodge them in Brisbane. I think I tried about four or five times and gave up—that one just seemed too hard. Also, the requirement to present different sets of information or to double up on it is very frustrating. I know that whole area is changing too for the legal profession.
The mobility factor is a boon for locum support for rural doctors. As doctors become freer to work across state boundaries, while we will not necessarily have all the doctors rushing to rural areas, it will make it easier and the incentive is there for that to happen. This bill is directed towards some important machinery matters that need to be addressed to give effect to the ability of medical practitioners to retain the same Medicare billing eligibility, and that will be operational from 1 July 2010. As for the amendments, they are said to be consequential and transitional, but really they are fundamental to the Health Insurance Act to give effect to this provision for medical practitioners. The Commonwealth does not need to apply the act to national law, but it is for that provision that I just talked about.
The national registration and accreditation scheme provides for a nationally consistent means of identifying both specialists and GPs and a mandatory requirement for continuing professional development. That is an important inclusion. I have that requirement in the legal profession; I have to get my 10 points each year to keep my practising certificate. There are some exceptions, of course, for doing other things—teaching et cetera—but it is important in any profession to have that ongoing mandatory requirement. It means that at least every year practitioners in whatever field they are in have to commit to certain things. It is good also if schemes can operate so that not only do you have to commit to mandatory continuing professional development but that it has some coherence built around it about what information, knowledge and skills are required each year in the area. I know that does not operate in the legal profession, but it would be good. And because I also have a teaching background, I have some feel for what should be included in continuing professional development and education.
The National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions modernises other regulation of health professionals by creating this one regulatory environment. It is important because any profession wants to modernise but the reality with health is that it has to serve the needs of the health profession but equally serve our needs—the consumers, the patients. This scheme addresses both. It will end the duplication of effort, it will end multiple standards and it will end the red tape caused by separate systems in each state and territory. In the words of the minister: it will be a workable registration scheme for Australian patients and practitioners that also contributes to improving the safety of our health system for all Australians.
In closing, I can say that the amendments in this bill take on board the stakeholders’ concerns raised during the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill and that, because of that inquiry into the bill, there was more time, more input and more consideration of it. That is always a good process. I look forward to having a workable, practical, national registration system that will deliver for patients and health professionals alike. I commend the bill to the House.
It is with great pleasure, anticipation and some excitement that I stand to speak on the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 today. I have this pleasure, anticipation and excitement because today follows the day when the federal budget was brought down in this parliament and we have seen the greatest commitment made to health in this country and the greatest reforms included in this budget that have taken place since the introduction of Medicare.
I might say it was a Labor government that introduced Medicare and, once again, a Labor government that has introduced the monumental reforms that were included in the budget and in the historic health reforms that were reached at COAG earlier this year—less than a month ago, I might add. These reforms will see 1,300 new subacute hospital beds, over 6,000 new doctors, an additional 2,500 aged-care beds, emergency department waiting times capped at four hours, elective surgery delivered on time to 95 per cent of Australians, an historic agreement to reshape mental health services and help 20,000 extra young people get access to mental health services, more coordinated care for patients with diabetes in general practice, a Commonwealth takeover of primary care and a Commonwealth takeover of aged care. They are very exciting reforms that were agreed to in the COAG agreement, and I will talk a little later about some of the wonderful announcements that were made in last night’s budget, announcements that will benefit not only those people living in Shortland electorate but all Australians.
The legislation that we have before us today will change the way registration and accreditation of health practitioners throughout Australia is conducted. Currently, all states and territories have their own separate legislations containing different rules which govern the registration. Under the Australian Constitution, states and territories are empowered to legislate to register and regulate health professionals. The requirements and conditions of registration for professionals have therefore varied across jurisdictions.
In the past some attempts have been made to simplify registration and regulation but they got bogged down and did not come to fruition. I believe this is vitally important legislation because it will bring about a number of administrative reforms. There will be a reduction in the red tape that we have heard about from previous speakers—red tape that makes it cumbersome, that impacts on professionals’ ability to practise throughout Australia and ultimately impacts on the service delivery to all Australians. That red tape is due to the need for multiple registrations that impact on people’s ability to work across jurisdictions.
I also believe there is a safety and quality consideration because there is no uniformity, there are different registrations in different jurisdictions and there have been cases in the past where a person has been denied registration in one jurisdiction and granted it in another. The introduction and the passing of this legislation will do a lot to address that problem.
There has been enormous community consultation on the current legislation and, at the COAG meeting on 14 July 2006, it was determined that there should be a single national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals. COAG signed off on it on 26 March 2008 and the scheme will come into force on 1 July, provided it passes the parliament. I have no doubt that that will be the case. In addition to the disciplines of medicine, nursing, midwifery, pharmacy, physiotherapy, psychology, osteopathy, chiropractic, optometry, dental hygiene, dental prosthetics, dental therapy and podiatry, it is going to partially regulate Aboriginal and Torres Islander practitioners, medical radiation practitioners, Chinese medicine practitioners and occupational therapists.
This is excellent legislation. I see that the Minister for Health and Ageing has entered the chamber. I have to congratulate her on the outstanding work that she has done in bringing about the historic health reforms and in giving health such a high profile in the budget that was brought down last night. I heard Malcolm Farr say on Sky News last night that it will be very, very hard for her to do anything that will exceed the work that she has done in health to date. It really has been outstanding. Each and every Australian will benefit from the reforms and from the health items that are included in the budget. I would like to formally congratulate the minister for the outstanding work that she has done, and I commend the legislation to the House.
in reply—I thank all members for their contributions, and I thank the member for Shortland for those very kind comments. It is of course a matter of great pride for the government that we are able to pursue so many reforms in health. If this bill, the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, is to pass the House today—and we hope it will be supported by the opposition in order to pass the Senate—it will take us one step closer to delivering a national registration and accreditation system for Australia. It will indeed be a landmark reform to our health and hospitals system.
National registration has been a long time coming. The previous government, with the current Leader of the Opposition as the Minister for Health and Ageing, identified it as a goal and then decided to sit on its hands. After years of blaming the states and territories for all the problems in the health system, the then health minister was unable to work with the states and territories to deliver this key health reform. When we came to office we knew that a national scheme would be able to reduce red tape, increase standards and improve safety for the Australian community, and we pursued this within months of being elected, signing an intergovernmental agreement in March 2008. This was an agreement that the previous government had failed to achieve more than a year after announcing a national scheme in July 2006.
As I said, we know that the national scheme will also improve the mobility of the health workforce. It will stop health professionals from having to re-register every time they step across a state border, saving time, money and inconvenience. This will help to boost locum support for rural doctors as doctors become freer to work across state boundaries. I am very pleased to announce that, subject to the passing of this bill here today and in the Senate in the coming weeks, the implementation of this scheme is on track to commence on 1 July 2010.
Legislation is aggressively being introduced in all parliaments across Australia to adopt and apply the new national law. The Queensland, New South Wales, Victorian, ACT and Northern Territory acts have all received royal assent. The requirement to enact consequential amendments to Commonwealth health legislation provided us with an opportunity to streamline current specialist recognition processes under Commonwealth legislation, including for GPs. One of the objectives of the scheme is to improve registered health practitioner workforce mobility across jurisdictions. The proposal to streamline specialist recognition will facilitate workforce mobility and access to Medicare for international medical graduates, in line with the national partnership agreement. It is essential that the extensive systems involved in registration and recognition of practitioners for Medicare purposes are streamlined to ensure the reduction of red tape, currency of the HIA regulations, adequate access to Medicare rebates and the retention of practitioners in Australia.
The implementation of this scheme has much to do with the ongoing valuable input of stakeholders into making sure that this very complex scheme was able to be shaped into one which was practical. I will be moving three minor amendments to this legislation, following feedback from stakeholders that was provided to the Senate committee inquiry. These amendments provide further clarity to the definition of a consultant physician and nursing care and update a provision taken from the Health Insurance Act by widening the scope of sections 19C, 19CB and 19DA to apply to all health professionals who render Medicare rebatable services. Contrary to the assertions of the opposition health spokesperson, who I see is in the chamber now, the Senate inquiry actually reported yesterday. I note that the recommendation of that Senate committee was that the bill be passed. I also note the recommendation that the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency place information on their website that provides clarity for the community on the definition of protected titles and roles. I can advise the House that the government will pursue this recommendation.
Through our amendments we are also addressing the concerns raised in the coalition minority report. I thank those opposite for indicating their support for this important bill. The National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions will modernise the regulation of health professionals, ending the duplication of effort and the red tape caused by separate systems in each state and territory, and will improve safety for the Australian community. It is with very great pride that I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendments (1) to (9):
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 16 to 18), omit subparagraph (a)(iii) of the definition of consultant physician, substitute:
(iii) if that specialty is also prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of paragraph (a) of the definition of specialistthe regulations provide that the medical practitioner is a consultant physician, rather than a specialist, in relation to that specialty or is both a consultant physician and a specialist in relation to that specialty; or
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item, substitute:
6 Subsection 3(1) (definition of nursing care )
Omit “registered nurse”, substitute “nurse who is covered by paragraph (a) of the definition of nurse”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (lines 25 to 27), omit subparagraph (a)(iii) of the definition of specialist, substitute:
(iii) if that specialty is also prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of paragraph (a) of the definition of consultant physicianthe regulations provide that the medical practitioner is a specialist, rather than a consultant physician, in relation to that specialty or is both a specialist and a consultant physician in relation to that specialty; or
(4) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (lines 16 to 21), omit the item, substitute:
14 Subsection 19C(2)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(2) In this section:
practitioner means:
(a) a medical practitioner; or
(b) a practitioner, within the meaning of section 124B, of any other kind who is registered under a law of a State or Territory as a practitioner of that kind; or
(c) a health professional of any other kind who is registered under a law of a State or Territory as a health professional of that kind.
practitioner’s registration means:
(a) if the practitioner is a medical practitioner—the practitioner’s registration under a law of a State or Territory as a medical practitioner; or
(b) if the practitioner is covered by paragraph (b) or (c) of the definition of practitionerthe practitioner’s registration as mentioned in that paragraph.
Note: The heading to section 19C is altered by omitting “medical”.
(5) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (line 24), omit “medical”.
(6) Schedule 1, item 16, page 6 (line 1), omit “medical”.
(7) Schedule 1, item 17, page 6 (lines 5 to 10), omit the item, substitute:
17 Before subsection 19CB(1)
Insert:
(1A) In this section:
practitioner has the same meaning as in section 19C.
practitioner’s registration has the same meaning as in section 19C.
Note: The heading to section 19CB is altered by omitting “medical”.
17A Subsection 19CB(1)
Omit “medical”.
(8) Schedule 1, item 21, page 6 (lines 22 to 26), omit the item, substitute:
21 Subsection 19CB(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) Unless sooner revoked, the direction has effect until the practitioner is authorised under the practitioner’s registration to render the professional service, or to render the professional service in the circumstances where the practitioner was not previously authorised to render it (as the case may be).
21A Subsection 19CB(4)
Omit “medical” (wherever occurring).
(9) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (line 27) to page 7 (line 4), omit the item, substitute:
22 Subsection 19DA(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) In this section:
deregistered practitioner means a person:
(a) who was registered under a law of a State or Territory as a practitioner; but
(b) who is not currently registered under a law of a State or Territory as a practitioner.
practitioner has the same meaning as in section 19C.
As I mentioned previously, the government is moving amendments to the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 arising from submissions to the Senate inquiry on the bill. These amendments clarify the regulations relating to the recognition of a consultant physician or specialist for the purposes of Medicare and amend the definition of nursing care to clarify that nursing care may only be provided by or under the supervision of a registered nurse division I.
In recent years an increasing range of health professionals such as psychologists, speech pathologists and chiropractors have become able to provide Medicare eligible services. However, these health professionals are not currently subject to sections in the Health Insurance Act which prohibit the payment of Medicare benefits for a service provided by a health practitioner where the service is beyond the scope of the practitioner’s registration.
These amendments to the bill propose to extend the scope of the HIA to widen the scope of relevant sections in the HIA so that they apply to all health professionals registered under a state and territory law who render Medicare eligible services.
Again, I think that the shadow minister may have been otherwise engaged when I made these comments before. We do welcome the feedback that has been provided by the coalition. We have indicated our preparedness, as is seen in the amendments that are being distributed, to take on board their recommendations and we are very pleased that they have indicated that this bill will now be supported. It is indeed vital that this legislation is passed in time for the implementation of the scheme on 1 July 2010. We will all, on both sides of the House, be very proud when it is able to be introduced.
I thank the Minister for Health and Ageing for those comments. I do not intend to get into a tit-for-tat with the minister. The advice I received in relation to the report at 10.13 this morning is that, due to time constraints in the Senate yesterday, the report is now scheduled for tabling this afternoon. That is the advice from the Senate Community Affairs Committee and that is the advice I relied on in making my comments. Obviously there is some confusion somewhere, but that is the advice I received in writing. That is the advice we have most recently received.
The point that needs to be made on all of this is that this has been another bungled affair. When it comes to the health portfolio in the Rudd government, it is one bungle after the next. We have seen over the course of the last two years repeated mistakes made not just in this chamber but in the other chamber as well. That is why people now are starting to question whether this is a government that is sincere in all it proposes on health. We have seen promise after promise in a number of areas that this minister has responsibility for that have not been delivered on.
There is great angst within the medical community about aspects of accreditation and about great big new bureaucracies which are being created under this government not just in relation to this bill but in relation to the most recent proposals by the Prime Minister at the COAG meeting on health. These great big new bureaucracies are not going to create greater efficiencies, they are not going to create better patient outcomes and they are not going to create better professional standards if the profession is not brought along with the government’s reform. I think there is a level of angst amongst many of the professions at the moment that this government conducts these vendettas not because of a desire to seek better patient outcomes but because of these ideological positions adopted particularly by the minister.
There will be further amendments that will be required to this bill in due course because there are, in my view, unforeseen difficulties. I suspect that we will be made aware of them as they come to light, as will the government of course. I ask that the minister accept that that is the case. It is a significant reform. We do believe that national registration and a breaking down of those state barriers is important. We do not accept the original position of the government on accreditation, but I do accept that there has been some shift by the government on this. But again it was a ham-fisted approach from the start and it undermines the government’s credibility. I do not think the Australian public believe anymore that this government will deliver on the promises that it makes. There will be unintended consequences, perhaps through no fault of the government but perhaps because of its ham-fisted approach. Either way, let us accept that there will be amendments required. I believe the minister should give an undertaking to the House that she will deal with those in a timely manner and in a way whereby the professions can accept that there is some give from the government in relation to some of the difficulties that will arise.
That is the position of the opposition. We have been supporting the process as best we can, but there was considerable difficulty in what was first proposed by the government. This is not a perfect model that is being put forward and the amendments that will need to be made today and in due course, I hope, will address some of the ongoing concerns that the professions have to this approach. We support the amendments on that basis.
I would like to add a couple of comments following those questions that have been raised by the shadow minister. It is difficult on this occasion to continue to have patience with an opposition who refuse to acknowledge that in this instance all 10 professions covered by this legislation, all states and territories and the previous government that he was part of have signed onto this plan. If there were any complications, misjudgments or unintended consequences from the plan that the member opposite suggests that we put forward, I would remind him that it is his current leader who was the Minister for Health and Ageing at the time that the previous Prime Minister signed this agreement. It has only been our government that has been able to pursue it to implementation stage to iron out a vast range of complex issues.
The only part of the comments of the shadow minister that I agree with is that of course a new national registration and accreditation scheme over time will need to be able to change if problems arise. It is a complex system, and no-one is pretending that it is not, but I think it is more than audacious to come in here and deny the fact that we now have all 10 professions being covered by this calling for the registration and accreditation scheme to be introduced. We have all the states and territories on board. We are not required to pass the substantive legislation here. We are passing legislation which ensures that various financial benefits paid by the Commonwealth will be appropriately paid to people who are registered and accredited under this scheme.
It is simply wrong, quite wrong, to say that this will have no benefit for patients and no impact on improving standards. The very purpose of introducing a nationally consistent registration and accreditation scheme is to enable the easy mobility of our vitally important health workforce across the country, which of course has an immediate impact on patients, who need nurses, doctors and other health professionals to be able to move where there is need, where there are better employment opportunities or where their families might be and continue practising. Of course, it ties in very well with the national standards that will be established through the registration and accreditation scheme and expanded through the government’s National Health and Hospitals Network, where we are introducing national standards that apply clinically across the whole country.
I accept that the shadow minister would like to be sure that, if any future problems arise, they will be handled. Obviously, the government are always prepared to look at problems as they arise in the implementation of any scheme. It would be foolish not to. I do not think that requires an undertaking; I think that is common sense. I think the approach we have taken to date, including accepting the recommendations that came from the Senate committee report, is an important indication that we are prepared to do that. I hope that this legislation will now pass this House and be able to be dealt with expeditiously in the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, 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 26 November, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
We are here today to deal with amendments moved by the government to its own Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, introduced last year. There are a number of aspects to the amendment bill, and I will deal with them sequentially.
Last year the government introduced legislation to extend the Do Not Call Register to business, government, fax and emergency service numbers. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy had announced with great fanfare what a reform it would be to extend the current register—which, as we all know, was introduced by the previous government and has been an enormous success: more than four million people have registered their residential home numbers. At the time of its introduction, the register was restricted to residential home numbers. There was not, quite deliberately, an extension to business in particular.
We have made it clear throughout this year that extending the register at this point to fax and emergency service numbers is something we would support. However, we shouted loudly from the rooftops that the extension of the register to government and business, and particularly to business, whilst simplistically well intentioned—as so many things from the government are—was unworkable in a policy implementation sense. The simple reason it was unworkable is that the legislation did not and could not adequately distinguish between a telemarketing call and a normal, day-to-day, commercial business telephone call. I made that very clear earlier this year with my friend and colleague the member for Dunkley, the shadow minister for small business. You would have had a situation where small businesses in particular, before they made a commercial call, would have had to check whether the business they were calling was on the Do Not Call Register if they did not have a pre-existing relationship.
The Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into this bill—and I want to pay tribute to my coalition colleagues on that Senate inquiry—and the evidence they heard from business groups, small businesses and big businesses was that this extension was utterly unworkable, and the committee reported to that effect. For many weeks the minister’s response was silence. Clearly, what has occurred is that there was belated recognition that this policy, this announcement in last year’s budget, this promise from the Labor Party, was not workable but no-one was prepared to admit it straightaway.
Then, on Friday, 30 April, the minister made an announcement with respect to the registration period for the Do Not Call Register as it currently applies to residential phone numbers. He announced that he would be introducing amendments to his Do Not Call Register amendment bill to extend the registration period, by regulation, from three years out to five years, initially.
Provided the House and the Senate deal with this matter in the next couple of days, the effect of this will be that the registration period of three years—which, for many people, expires naturally on the third anniversary of the introduction of the register at the end of May—will be extended and everyone will have a five-year period.
In that press release, the minister also, as quietly as he could, announced that at this stage the government was not intending to proceed with the extension of the Do Not Call Register to business—a belated recognition of the foolhardiness of his original announcement. They are still proposing to extend the register to government. We make the point that that will still harm small businesses in a very commercial sense, not in a telemarketing sense, in seeking to get contracts from government and the like. Obviously, we support extending the register to five years and we have made that point in the public arena. We welcome the fact that the minister has backed down on his extension to business telephone numbers. We note that he says he is going to keep consulting to try to work out how to introduce it, or words to that effect. We would encourage him simply to admit failure on this and to move on.
When the minister announced that the government would not proceed with the proposal to extend the register to include business numbers, like so many announcements it was made on a Friday, on 30 April. There are some cynics in the press gallery who claim that the government likes to make announcements when they do not think they will get attention if there are going to be backdowns or admissions of failure. That was the immediate suspicion on this Friday and it was confirmed to many people when they went to the departmental website to look at the fact sheets because they noted immediately that the backflip and the date of the announcement was actually one week earlier, 23 April. Clearly, the Friday backdown had been planned for a week earlier, not proceeded with, but delayed an entire week just to try to avoid the scrutiny and humiliation of admitting failure on the extension to business.
Our approach is to seek to facilitate, as fast as possible, the amendment to extend that registration period, as the minister has announced. He has announced that he intends to make this five years by disallowable instrument. I say here in this House that, as a matter of principle, the five-year extension should be part of the legislation so that the parliament decides. Last time, the parliament decided on an initial three-year period and the extension could be very easily and sensibly part of the legislation. The minister has said that he is going to do that by legislative instrument, which will mean that future ministers will have the discretion on how long the registration period should be. We think this legislation should contain an amendment and that the parliament can examine it in the future. Because we want to facilitate the quick passage of this legislation, we will do two things. Firstly, we will take the minister at his word that he is going to bring in a regulation for five years.
Having made the point about it being a matter of principle, it would be preferable that the legislation was amended and that this was done in the legislation rather than by regulation. We will not seek here today to try to force that amendment. I call on the minister to make it part of the legislation but, at the end of the day, we will support the provisions of this amendment which, of course, take away the government’s unworkable extension to business and extend the registration period for residential numbers.
We have had good discussions among the whips in terms of the practicalities at what is a very busy time for the House and the Senate. On that basis, I have agreed to restrict my remarks and I am very grateful to those members of the coalition who have also agreed to restrict their remarks so that we can deal with this matter today. I call on the minister to consider what has been said and for him to back down entirely on his extension to business, which, he knows and the government know, will never see the light of day. The consultation for an extra few months is really just a mirage to try to deflect attention from the fact that this is unworkable, that it will not be proceeded with and that, if it were proceeded with, it would cause huge chaos in the business community.
I am sure there are many of us here who have experienced telemarketers calling or at least know someone who has. We hear the stories of how annoying telemarketing companies call your home just on dinnertime or just when you are putting the kids to bed or the baby in the bath. We might be familiar with some of the comebacks that people have used to try to get these pesky telemarketers not to call again, such as the one where you repeat everything they say and, when they ask why you are doing that, you say you are training to be a telemarketer. There is the other one where you say: ‘Hold on. Could you speak a little slowly? I need to write all of these things down.’ I could have fun with this topic all day. I speak in support of the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, and I point out that there are some very serious sides to this subject.
The bill amends the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 to enable the registration of all Australian telephone and fax numbers, including emergency service numbers. The bill introduces regulation of unsolicited fax marketing by prohibiting the sending of a marketing fax to a number on the Do Not Call Register. The Do Not Call Register, as first introduced, did not protect fax users. While business numbers are now subject to further consultation, that is an important area that we still need to pursue. Also, it did not include emergency services organisations.
It has been a particular concern of the government that unwanted and unsolicited calls and faxes are wasting valuable business resources and could potentially affect the operation of emergency service organisations. So those annoying telemarketing and similar phone calls that some of us can often brush off with clever comebacks can actually affect, for example, the performance of small business. Contrary to the contribution of the shadow spokesperson on communications, these are issues that we genuinely need to talk about with respect to small businesses and how we can assist them in stopping unwanted telephone calls that affect their business.
During public consultation undertaken by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, submissions noted the impact of unsolicited telemarketing and fax marketing on businesses—particularly small businesses—through the loss of time, toner and paper and productivity. Also during this consultation there were good indications that approximately 86 per cent of respondents supported the extension of the register to all telephone and fax numbers.
In my beautiful electorate of Dobell on the New South Wales Central Coast, I am sure there has been many a telemarketing call made to individuals and small businesses. Small businesses are what make the Central Coast economy tick. It is important that we continue to look at this issue in relation to small business. Receiving unwanted and unsolicited phone calls could be most unwelcome and unproductive for businesses. You can imagine what a takeaway shop owner would feel like if a telemarketing call came through during the peak time of lunch, when they were trying to serve people and conduct their business, or what a flower shop operator on Valentine’s Day would feel if they were receiving calls from a telemarketer on something in which they had no interest. So we really do need to look at this and make sure that it is addressed properly.
The Do Not Call Register Act 2006 was introduced in May 2007 to enable individuals to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls by listing their fixed line or mobile numbers—used primarily for private or domestic purposes—on the Do Not Call Register. In response to concerns raised about restrictions on the types of numbers that could be listed on the register, a departmental discussion paper was released on 15 August 2008 seeking community views on whether all telephone and fax numbers should be eligible for inclusion on the register. As I have outlined, submissions to the discussion paper indicated that the majority of respondents supported the inclusion of all telephone and fax numbers. The submissions to the discussion paper and representations made directly to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy indicated that businesses, particularly small businesses, would like to be able to receive the protections available under the register. In addition, the Emergency Call Service Advisory Committee raised concerns over the potential for telemarketing calls to adversely affect the operations of emergency service organisations and their ability to respond to genuine emergency calls.
The bill amends the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 to enable the registration of fax numbers and particular emergency service numbers. The extension of the register to these Australian numbers avoids uncertainty by consumers or the telemarketing and fax marketing industries about who is eligible and avoids the need for complicated eligibility requirements. The bill provides all new registrants with the option to choose specific industry classifications that they wish to receive calls and faxes about. Marketers will be able to access these choices when they check their contact lists against the register and will be able to make a telemarketing call or send a marketing fax if it relates to an activity covered by an industry classification about which a registrant has chosen to receive calls or faxes. This mechanism has the benefit of allowing registrants to adapt their registration to their needs by selecting calls and faxes that are wanted and relevant. This will be of particular benefit to making sure that types of calls and faxes received are ones that you actually want to receive and do not affect your business or cause an imposition in unwanted telephone calls or faxes.
The default position will continue to be that registrants opt out of all telemarketing calls and marketing faxes. A registrant will be able to take positive action to opt in to receive certain types of marketing calls and marketing faxes. It is proposed that the amendments will apply to all registrants, extending the options currently available to consumers. In addition, this will provide more opportunities for telemarketers and fax marketers to call numbers on the register and potentially target their calls more effectively to interested recipients.
In addition, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will have the ability to make a legislative instrument setting out the circumstances in which consent can be inferred to make a telemarketing call or to send a marketing fax to a number that is on the register. A number of consequential amendments will also be made to the Telecommunications Act 1997. One of these will be to give the ACMA the power to make an industry standard relating to the fax marketing industry. There are time constraints in relation to this bill so that we can get it through. It is important that this bill can pass and the process can be amended as quickly as possible. I have never had the chance myself to use one of those smart answers to a telemarketer, but I am sure that the changes to the Do Not Call Register will mean that people who do not want to receive those calls will not have to have those smart answers in the future because they will be able to ensure that they do not receive faxes or phone calls that they do not want. I commend the bill to the House.
I also rise in support of the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and to put a few thoughts on record about how it can be improved into the future. From my perspective this is a simple and practical move to allow individuals to have restrictions on who rings them or who gets in touch with them via fax machine. For something so simple and so practical to be so hard and to have such tangled outcomes says a lot about the broader political processes in Australia today and how it is at times so difficult to weave good policy out of the vested interests that get their claws into the process.
This register is certainly, from a consumer’s point of view, one that would be broadly agreed upon and supported. That is why, I suspect, the discussion paper in 2008 from a new government was undertaken following the actions of a previous government to introduce the very concept of a do-not-call register. I therefore assume—and I may be wrong—that there is general bipartisanship from both sides of this chamber about expanding the bill and seeing a continuation of the concept of the register. This bill is expanding the numbers that can be registered to include businesses and emergency numbers. I understand there have been some concerns in the emergency services sector that calls to 000 were in a sense wasting time that should be devoted to emergency calls. That is, therefore, an eminently sensible change to allow emergency numbers to be included on the register. Likewise, a common complaint from the very large small business sector on the mid-North Coast is as simple as the amount of fax paper that is used through telemarketing and fax marketing being a waste and a cost. When I talk about small business I talk about the genuine five-employees-or-fewer family based businesses where costs of ink cartridges matter and are watched on a daily basis with regard to how they are managed. It is an eminently sensible move to include small businesses and businesses generally in their ability to be on the Do Not Call Register.
I talk about the tangled web we weave, however. I did note the shadow minister’s comments with regard to the three years or the five years issue. I do find it a very strange outcome that we have legislation before this House which is not truly reflective of what the practical outcome will be in its implementation. The dispute of three years versus five years and the hot debate of the topic of the use of disallowable instruments versus presentation of the full legislative package before us I think are unfortunate.
Likewise I make mention of the exemptions. The irony will not be lost on anyone in community that feature pieces of the exemptions are political candidates and political parties. For members of parliament and for other members of political organisations there is hopefully a deep sense of irony about us all wanting to be the consumers’ friends by allowing people freedom of choice about who does or does not get in contact with them but wanting those involved in the political process to be allowed to annoy people as much as we want. I do see some irony there. I would have put up an amendment to the amendment. However, I do note there is still ongoing a review of the scheme looking at those exemptions for charities and political parties. The surveys clearly show that people are still frustrated by those phone calls that they receive even when they are on the Do Not Call Register.
As a local example, the night before the by-election in the seat of Lyne the entire electorate of Lyne received an American style campaigning answering machine message from the previous member, causing enormous confusion—and, if anything, assisting my campaign. However, it was seen as intrusive. It was, in an electorate with a high elderly demographic, the cause of confusion. It did lead to a great deal of frustration for many people who felt their privacy was being invaded by the political process. That is something for consideration, for the future actions of everyone involved in the political process. It would be nice if we could empower people in a formal sense through the Do Not Call Register to include political parties and political organisations so that people do have that choice of whether they do want answering machine messages played down their phones the night before elections or by-elections.
I certainly support this legislation. It is important. I would support the five-year expansion. I hope that disallowable instrument is brought in. I do raise one issue that may be dealt with in the detail of the legislation. That is the issue of the financial implications and the $4.7 million being allocated over four years, with $3.5 million of that to be recouped from telemarketing and fax marketing industry groups through the paying of fees to access the register. I would hope we have strict guidelines, controls and monitoring by ACMA and anyone else necessary over the use and potential misuse of those lists that are being accessed through the paying of a fee.
If there is a contract in place, where someone is buying something from government and buying a list which is a do-not-call register, I would hope there are very strict guidelines around the use of that list—for example the on-selling of that list for other purposes; or the use of that list for targeted mail, compared to the use of telephones or fax machines. I would welcome feedback from the minister or parliamentary secretary, or whoever is going to respond, on that question of how tight the rules and regulations are for the telemarketing and fax marketing companies who are actually purchasing, in a sense, a do-not-call register list, and what they can then do with that list once they have paid for and then have autonomy over the use and potential misuse of that list. I would hope the guidelines around that are strict and that there is a genuine commitment to privacy through the intent of this legislation and the creation and expansion of the Do Not Call Register.
Other than that, it is good legislation and I look forward to its implementation and a wide uptake from the community. It is a opt-in exercise, so people do have to commit to getting their own numbers on the list—and on the mid-north coast, I strongly encourage that. I know there has been uptake over the last couple of years, and the more people who feel empowered through that process, the better; and the better our democracy is as a consequence.
I speak in support of the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. It was interesting to listen to the member for Lyne talk about many of the same things I am now going to. It is good to see there is widespread concern in the community. This bill makes important and useful changes to the existing Do Not Call Register Act 2006. It also contains consequential amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 in relation to fax marketing.
Many people contact my office in relation to unwanted marketing and other junk calls and the existing Do Not Call Register is a very useful service. Although it only applies to private and residential phone lines at present, the number of people who contact my office about what I call junk calls—calls that they do not want—is enormous. And many of them actually do not know of the service, so it is always good to be able to direct them to it. Most people who are referred to the Do Not Call Register are satisfied with the drop off in marketing calls, although I still receive regular reports of rogue operators ignoring the restriction. Rogue operators seem to be more prevalent from overseas call centres, particularly India, who do not always follow the restrictions we have on that form of contact here, and that is something that needs to be addressed in the future.
The existing Do Not Call Register Act has a registration period of three years for a residential or private phone number. There are now more than four million fixed line and mobile phone numbers registered on the Do Not Call Register as more and more people have become aware of the benefits. As other members have said in this debate, there is nothing worse than being annoyed by a junk phone call when you are at home with the family, trying to get inner ready, trying to put the kids to bed—or, even as I have had happened to me, walking in the door with several bags of shopping and trying to get the door open, having the phone ring, dropping everything and running in to find out it is someone I have never heard of before selling a product I do not want.
As the Do Not Call Register will reach its third anniversary at the end of this month—that is, May—many people who registered in 2007 are at risk of dropping off the Do Not Call Register unless they reregister their telephone number. One of the intentions of this bill before the House is to change that. Up until now more than 40 per cent of people who had registered in 2007, at the start of the scheme, had reregistered as at the end of April, but that leaves the other 60 per cent to find out that they have dropped off the list when they start getting calls again.
A provision of this amendment bill is to provide the minister with the power to make a determination to set the period of registration. It is intended that the initial determination will extend the registration period from three years to five years. Of course, those people who registered three years ago will now not be put in that position where they suddenly get those unwanted calls out of the blue, as it were. Importantly, this will also apply to those who are already on the Do Not Call Register, with the effect that phone customers who would have dropped off the register at the end of this month will now have another two years of less interrupted dinner times. I think everyone should be happy about that. And if this does not go through in time, by 31 May, there is also provision to reinstate any registrations that have already expired.
This bill also contains an extension of the scope of the Do Not Call Register to cover emergency service and government telephone numbers. When the bill was first put before the House last year it also had an exemption for businesses, which I understand is now not to be included due to opposition concerns. Having said that, I have had many small businesses contact me about telemarketing calls, about unwanted junk calls and about faxes. This has been particularly from microbusinesses, one or two person businesses, who have to have a fax—an essential tool for all businesses—but who do not like the expense or the wasted time, again, in getting information about things they do not want. This change, in relation to emergency services particularly, will remove the potential that unwanted marketing calls may have of affecting the operation of emergency service organisations.
This bill also contains provisions that will allow for all fax numbers to be registered on the do-not-call register. That does include businesses. So individuals, businesses, community and volunteer organisation will all be able to register their fax numbers so as they no longer receive piles of what I like to call junk faxes—what other people might call marketing faxes. It is bad enough receiving spurious information that has not been asked for but it is even worse when it comes at a cost to a household, small business or community organisation’s budget. There is the cost of paper that, in most cases, goes unread into the bin. Then there is the cost of ink cartridges or toner. Even a few faxes per day will soon cause an inkjet fax machine to run dry and that is when the cost hits home. If you wander down to your local Officeworks store or other supplier to buy an ink cartridge you find that they start at about $20, and that depends on the brand and type of fax machine that you have. They are very small. They do not last long; they get used up quickly. If you have a laser fax machine you need toner. Toner starts at about $100 and goes up from there. Again, you are paying for things that you did not want to print in the first place.
That is bad enough for a small business; it can be far worse for a volunteer organisation. In many cases they run on the smell of an oily rag and those dollars can be better spent in other areas. The other problem is that many volunteer and community organisations use what we would call old fax machines. The modern fax machines that most of us use have memories; they can do more than one thing at a time. But if you have an old version of a fax machine you might find that if it is receiving you cannot use it to send. So if you are receiving a junk fax you have to wait until it is finished before you can do your own work. That is very unfair.
There are not many forms of unwanted advertising that make the recipient pay directly for it but the sending of junk faxes is most certainly one of them. The only thing I can compare it to is spam email, because you are probably paying in terms of download. So if you are paying per megabyte or gigabyte you may be paying for some of those spam emails. The difference is that you can filter them or redirect them. You can get rid of most of them. You cannot do that with a fax, at the moment.
I may, as an example, run through a list of junk faxes that have come through my home fax machine over the recent period. It is a fax machine I have had for years; it sits on an unlisted number—that is, it is a silent line—but the faxes keep rolling in. They are many and varied but they are not useful to me. They are not about information I have asked for; they are always about something else—some rubbish. They include an advertisement for floating massages on Port Phillip Bay, another for the same but on Sydney Harbour, and faxes advertising dubious-sounding diplomas—at only one eleventh of the price of others! There are also faxes advertising holidays in Bali for dolphin watching and holidays in Thailand. There have even been faxes offering to list my fax number, for a fee of $38.50, so that I can receive even more junk faxes.
Then we have faxes advertising solar panels and home and office carpet cleaning. And there seem to be lots of faxes about laptop computers. There are faxes for go-kart racing, clothes sales, more cut price laptops and cheap restaurant meals. None of these have anything to do with the business that I have been in or am in. Certainly I have never asked to receive any of them. And of course there are ads for printer and fax ink cartridges, which I find quite ironic seeing those very ads use up the ink in the fax machine.
There are businesses that do this for a business: they sell other lists of supposed contact numbers so that people can send out yet more faxes. But I think that the fax that really took the cake was the one that was sent to me saying that I could send out my own junk faxes to 10,000 people if I pay an organisation $750 for their list and services. It would become almost endless if it went on that way. If the bill that we have before us at the moment goes through it will have the effect of allowing people to opt out of that. If they want to keep receiving such faxes that is fine, they do not have to do anything, but if they are overwhelmed by them—and I know many are—there will now be something to do about it.
The list of advertising faxes can go on but I think my point is made. Many small businesses, community organisations and households do not want faxes. Nor should they have to have them. Each one of these received faxes comes at a cost to the recipient, and their numbers are growing. This bill will provide relief from junk faxes and I am certain that it will be very popular with anyone who has ever been flooded with them. You may call it what you like but if it is not going to be used or read, to me it is junk.
The extension of the registration period to five years is also a great improvement and I am sure will be welcomed by all those who have already chosen to register their numbers on the Do Not Call register. I suspect it will also give a bit of impetus and a bit of an advertising kick to the register so that more people take advantage of it and use it for their phone services. I commend this bill to the House.
When it comes to the use of communications networks there is inevitably a balance to be struck between the convenience of being accessible to all—being able to call anybody that you like and equally being available to be called by anybody you like—and the issues that that involves in terms of exposing yourself to being available to be called by those who you may not wish to hear from.
Those issues—that are difficult to balance up—were addressed by the Howard government when then communications minister, Senator Coonan, brought forward the Do Not Call Register legislation. That introduced effective protection against consumers being interrupted in their own homes by marketing calls that they did not wish to receive. What we have seen with this bill is a rather poorly-thought-through suggestion that the same mechanism ought to be extended to business.
It is a policy intent which has been justified, unfortunately, in a rather anecdotal and emotive fashion, and without much careful and sober analysis. When you think about it, businesses are in a very different position to households. Businesses, by definition, succeed on the basis of selling and marketing their services. Therefore, it is very important that businesses have available to them the capacity to market their services. Indeed, what businesses do on a regular, daily basis as part of their core activity is communicate with each other, very often by telephone. This proposed provision to extend the operation of the Do Not Call Register to business would, if it were to proceed, have significant adverse consequences on commerce as it is carried out on a daily basis, and would do very substantial harm to many businesses.
This, unfortunately, is a fact that did not appear to have been thought about when the Rudd government decided that it would extend the application of the Do Not Call Register to businesses. The usual nanny state instinct to regulate first and think later seemed to kick in, and it is unfortunate that it was necessary for there to be quite an extensive campaign by concerned business organisations to highlight the serious adverse effects of this ill-thought-through extension of the application of the Do Not Call Register.
A substantive piece of work was commissioned from Access Economics by the Australian Direct Marketing Association. Access Economics sought to quantify in an analytical fashion the costs and benefits of the proposed extension of the Do Not Call Register. It found that it would impose some quite significant costs on all businesses including, for example, the decline in the efficiency of sales and marketing activities and the flow-through loss of revenue. Certainly, it also quantified the loss of productivity that businesses experience when they receive unwanted calls, but it made the point that this needs to be thought of in its totality. If you say to businesses, ‘You will have a significant proportion of your target business market removed from you,’ that is a material cost which needs to be weighed up against the purported benefit.
It is very clear when you analyse the position of businesses that they are in a quite different position to the position of consumers, and the proposed extension of the Do Not Call Register to businesses was not well thought through. Analysis shows that a much better position would be to say, ‘Let us not extend the Do Not Call Register to businesses; let us recognise that when you go into business you engage in the activity of selling and marketing to others and it is a perfectly reasonable part of the bargain that you are also available to be marketed to.’ It is significant that many businesses have come forward to raise precisely that concern.
We do consider it most unfortunate that the Rudd government was proposing an extension of yet another piece of interventionist regulation, a piece of regulation which was poorly thought through, which would have had significantly adverse impacts on the conduct of business and on the conduct of commerce and which would have had serious adverse economic consequences. We are pleased that that provision is now not included in the bill as it stands before this House, but we call upon the minister to acknowledge that he made a policy error in even bringing it forward and to give certainty that this matter will not be proceeded with. I certainly pay tribute to the many organisations that have worked to put the facts in front of this parliament, particularly the Australian Direct Marketing Association.
In October 2005, I introduced a private member’s bill into this House calling on the government to introduce a Do Not Call Register to protect consumers from unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing calls. The then Howard government advised that this bill was outrageous and that it could not support the bill and claimed that it would not work. Indeed, the arguments that the member for Bradfield has just raised for extending the list are the very arguments that the government of the day put up for why we could not have a Do Not Call Register at all. To come into this place claiming credibility for the legislation is a little stretched. Yes, the Howard government did introduce the bill, but only after outrageous consumer demand—only after talk-back radio ran with this issue for three years. Eventually, Senator Helen Coonan, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, said, ‘Yes, we have heard the public; we are going to do something about it.’ So I want to say thankyou to the consumers out there, the people of Australia who said, ‘We want something.’
Registers were already operating successfully in the US and UK and I for one could not understand why we could not duplicate that here. The technology existed. It was an easy transition. After overwhelming public support for my campaign, the campaign on behalf of the Labor Party policy, the Howard government finally bowed and decided to adopt a policy to establish a Do Not Call Register, pretty much modelled on my private member’s bill.
Hear, hear!
In that year alone, telemarketers made over one billion calls to Australian households. You do not get to claim much in this House, but I am claiming the Do Not Call Register—I am! When the register was finally launched in May 2007, the public voted with their feet with over one million numbers registered in the first month of the register going live. Since that time, nearly 4.7 million homes, mobiles and VoIP numbers have been listed on the Do Not Call Register. This translates to roughly one in three Australian households who have opted out of receiving telemarketing calls. Most Australians want their house to be their castle, not a telemarketing paradise. This vindicates the popularity of the Do Not Call Register while reinforcing the message that the public wants to be able to choose whether or not to receive a telemarketing call.
A recent survey by ACMA found 93 per cent of those registered noticed fewer telemarketing calls after registering their home phone. From May 2008 to May 2009, ACMA received 12,000 complaints amounting to a 60 per cent drop from May 2007 to May 2008—figures of over 30,000 complaints. These statistics speak for themselves. The Do Not Call Register has been an outstanding success and is testimony to the will of the community to support my campaign.
The Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 builds on the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 and the Telecommunications Act 1997. It broadens and entrenches the Do Not Call Register as a powerful tool for consumers to choose to protect themselves from nuisance calls and fax machines. There has been considerable community pressure to extend the register period of the Do Not Call Register from three years. Initially, when the bill was introduced by the Howard government it caved in to the industry and said, ‘Okay, after three years all numbers will fall off.’ This was a mistake and there has been outstanding public pressure to extend it. As this initial three-year period starts to expire at the end of May this year, there will be a million people who will fall off the register. By the end of April, 40 per cent of people had reregistered their numbers, leaving the majority of people vulnerable to having their numbers drop off at the end of this month. This bill lengthens the registration period for numbers registered on the Do Not Call list initially from three to five years, including existing registrations. This will prevent numbers from dropping off the registration at the end of this month.
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Chisholm will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I inform the House that the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week as she is in Zurich lodging Australia’s bid for the World Cup. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions in relation to early childhood education, child care and youth, and the Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions in relation to sport on her behalf. Furthermore, the Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Defence Personnel will answer questions in relation to defence materiel and science and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions in relation to climate change and energy efficiency on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that he has presided over the two biggest spending budgets in Australia’s history, including $26 billion of new spending since last year. I ask: why does the Prime Minister only become an economic conservative at election time? Why would anyone believe that, after three years of being addicted to binge spending, with an election looming the Prime Minister can now go cold turkey?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Let us go to the facts first. In this budget, spending as a share of GDP falls from 26.2 per cent of GDP in 2009-10 to 23.6 per cent of GDP in 2013-14. That is less than the average under the Howard government, of 24 per cent of GDP. That first point is a matter of fact. Secondly, I would draw the attention of those opposite to this: when they were pursuing expansionary fiscal policy, the economy itself was expanding. They were being pro-cyclical; they were fuelling the fires of inflation. As a result, we had 10 interest rate rises in a row. What is the hallmark of an economic conservative? Acting counter-cyclically. When you have a global economic crisis of the type which has come in, what you do is you support the economy. That is what we have done. That is why, in the course of the global financial crisis, the Australian economy has emerged with the fastest growth, the second lowest unemployment, the lowest debt and the lowest deficit, and is the only economy of the major advanced economies not to go into recession. The reason why is that this government stepped up to the plate and injected a national economic stimulus strategy. That is why, if you look around the world today, they constantly ask this question: how did Australia do it?
This government is proud of the fact that we negotiated this economy through the worst global economic recession since the Great Depression. This government is proud of the fact that we kept unemployment down, to now 5.3 per cent. This government is proud of the fact that we defended hundreds and thousands of small businesses from going bust. This government is proud of the fact that it has engaged in the building of the biggest school modernisation program in the country’s history. And this government is proud of the fact that, unique of the major advanced economies, we kept this economy out of recession. This is a budget of responsible economic management, and I challenge those opposite to reflect on how the previous government fuelled the fires of inflation, with one pro-cyclical, pro-inflationary budget after another, particularly in pre-election years. We are proud of our economic record and determined to prosecute the case of long-term economic reform.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today members of the Procedure and Privileges Committee of the Parliament of Western Australia. The committee is led by its Chair, Speaker Grant Woodhams. On behalf of the House I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the key components of the 2010 budget, and what they say about Australia’s economic performance and prospects for the future?
It’s a big slug on your electorate. Stick up for your electorate.
I will give the member for Boothby the opportunity to stick up for his electorate from outside of the chamber, so he should sit there quietly.
I thank the member for Flynn for his question. The numbers in the responsible budget that I handed down last night are the outcome of the efforts of all Australians to make our economy strong and to make our economy the envy of the developed world. Of course the credit for that goes to employers and to employees, who all came together at a very critical time for our economy. It is a budget which says to all Australians, let us turn the successes of the recent past into a stronger economy for working families. It is a budget that returns to surplus and pays down debt ahead of every other major advanced economy. The government will halve peak debt and will get the budget in the black in three years—three years early. This is part of the fastest positive turnaround in the fiscal position since the 1960s. How has this been done? It has been done by imposing a two per cent spending cap over the forward estimates, and it has also been done by offsetting all new spending—unlike those opposite, who went into the election year every time spending like drunken sailors.
What we have done is impose on ourselves the discipline that we said we would impose on the budget last year when we took the responsible action to stimulate our economy to support small business and to support employment. So the policy successes of the past 18 months now mean that the Australian economy is recovering powerfully. The budget forecasts growth of 3¼ per cent in 2010-11 and four per cent in 2011-12 and, as the Prime Minister said before, an unemployment rate of 5.3 per cent, the envy of the developed world. If you look around the world you can see what an extraordinary effort that has been: employers and employees cooperating to make sure that breadwinners had a job, to make sure that they had a pay packet coming in to put food on the table, to make sure that small businesses had a pipeline of activity.
That is what we did last year and, now the economy is recovering, what we need to do and are doing in this budget is putting in place a very strict fiscal discipline. Of course that strict fiscal discipline means that we can get on with our reform program. That means that we can put in place the biggest improvements to health and hospitals in over 30 years, something supported very strongly on this side of the House and certainly not understood by the Leader of the Opposition. It means we can invest in the skills of our workforce, that we can invest in infrastructure and that we can invest in renewable energy and clean energy and it means that we can boost savings through boosting superannuation. Of course it means that we can give a real boost to the small business sector. These are all important reforms for the future and they are all built on fiscal discipline, on financial discipline, so much so that this is what the rating agency Standard and Poor’s had to say last night: this budget ensures Australia’s public finances ‘remain among the strongest of its peer group’. So this side of the House is proud of Australia’s economic performance and we are very optimistic about the years ahead. This responsible budget puts in place the framework for strong growth and it means that we can turn the success during the global financial crisis into a stronger economy for working families.
My question is again to the Prime Minister and I refer him to last night’s postbudget statement from the Business Council of Australia that ‘if the resource boom were to falter or be killed off the whole budget would collapse in a heap’. Given the deferral by Santos of a decision to proceed with a $15 billion LNG project in Gladstone and a review by BHP of its $17 billion Yeelirie uranium mine, can the Prime Minister guarantee that his great big new tax on mining will not cause the resource boom to falter?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Can I draw his attention to the fact that there have been a range of statements on the budget by a range of peak industry bodies. First of all, the Australian Industry Group refers to this budget as ‘a credible budget’.
Opposition members interjecting—
Those opposite seem to regard the peak body of Australian manufacturing as irrelevant to the national economic debate. Try this one. The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia says that it provides ‘certainty’ for small businesses and that they can ill-afford more instability or change as they are recovering from the global financial crisis. Also, Standard and Poor’s, which the Treasurer just referred to a minute ago, says:
The deficits and additional borrowings do not alter the sound profile of Australia’s public finances, which remain among the strongest of its peer group—
in the world. Therefore when it comes to third-party commentary, and I do not go to the various other groups who have commented positively on initiatives in health, education and elsewhere, let us go to the core proposition advanced by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the resources superprofits tax. First of all I would say to the Leader of the Opposition he should study carefully the fact that that tax—in other words, one on profits—was in the first instance advanced by the Mining Industry Council to the Henry tax review. That is one point. The second is this. I will draw his attention to this fact: the petroleum resource rent tax was introduced some 25 years ago and introduced at a rate of 40 per cent. Can I say to those opposite that in the subsequent 25 years we have seen one huge expansion of the resource projects on the North West Shelf and beyond, including the biggest resource project we have ever seen, the Gorgon project. Thirdly, I would draw his attention to the fact that when we are dealing with a tax on profits it is in fact a better arrangement than a tax on volume, which is what royalties are about. The reason for it makes basic economic sense, namely that if you have got small to medium companies starting up they are sometimes excessively penalised by the volume that they extract from the ground, as opposed to a tax on profits which means that when the company later develops they in fact have a greater financial base to sustain that payment to the general revenue. That is why we had an underpinning economic logic to this proposed tax reform.
Finally, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition this: if you look carefully at the modelling contained within Treasury’s response to the analysis contained in the Henry report, namely the modelling of Econtech commissioned by the Treasury in relation to the impact of this tax arrangement on the mining sector overall and taking into account also the additional tax benefits for the exploration sector, it actually predicts a 5.5 per cent increase in the overall level of mining activity in the Australian economy. Therefore I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that I know these four sets of facts present a problem when it comes to his core rhetorical argument, but I would also conclude on this. The Australian people actually own these resources. The Australian people deserve a fair share from these resources. The Australian people deserve a fair share when it comes to their super. The Australian people deserve a fair share when it comes to reducing the tax on small business. The Australian people also deserve a fair share when it comes to the most profitable mining companies in Australia contributing more to the long-term infrastructure of our nation. Miners deserve a fair share. It is a great industry. The Australian people deserve a fair share because they own this resource and it is their entitlement to obtain a fair share for themselves and for their children and for the nation’s future.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how this budget delivers on the priorities and values of the Australian government?
I thank the honourable member for her question, because it goes to what a budget is all about at the end of the day. It goes to what you are seeking to do for the future of the nation. The values which have driven this government in putting together this budget are: firstly, how do you bring about long-term sustainable economic growth through responsible economic management; secondly, how do you bring about a budget which delivers for all Australians a fair share of the natural wealth of our country; and, on top of that, how do you, through a budget, also make sure that we are investing in the future needs of our economy? These are the enduring and underlying values which have governed not just the budget brought down by the Treasurer last night but the three budgets that we have brought down so far in the history of this government.
I say to those opposite: when it comes to building a surplus for the future, it is absolutely important to make sure that we are entrenching our long-term prosperity in strong economic management. It is entirely appropriate to underpin growth when we have a situation where the global economic recession was threatening the very survival of our economy. The challenge now is to ensure that we build the surplus for the future, and that is what this budget does. With responsible management, the government will halve peak debt and get the budget back into black in three years—three years earlier than we predicted last year. I congratulate both the Treasurer and the finance minister for their work in producing the analysis and the policy discipline underpinning the document.
I also say to those opposite that what we have here is Australia returning to surplus faster than any other major advanced economy in the world. We will emerge from the global recession with less than one-tenth their average debt. Getting it right in terms of strong, long-term economic management is a core value for this government because it underpins what we can then do for working families, for all Australian families, for pensioners, for carers and for those who rely upon government to secure their future. Fairness for our country’s future—and this was part and parcel of the question that was asked before by the Leader of the Opposition—is why in this budget we have produced further tax cuts for families. If you are on $50,000 a year, you are paying 18 per cent less tax than you did three years ago. The budget also rewards savings for families, with a 50 per cent tax cut on bank interest up to $1,000. It also simplifies tax returns for 6½ million Australians. It also increases superannuation for Australian workers. They deserve decent security in their retirement. On top of that, we are investing in the future of our health and hospital system. The development of the new ‘A national health and hospitals network for Australia’s future’ is fundamental to the future security and health security of Australian people. This is a document of fundamental reform. There is $7.3 billion worth of investment contained within the budget in order to produce more doctors, more nurses and, of course, more hospital beds for the future. That is what we are doing in terms of fairness through this budget. Beyond that, it is not just about strong economic management; it is not just about delivering fairness for the future; it is also about how we secure our future against the long-term challenges that we face.
Again, the Leader of the Opposition asked questions about tax. We have an obligation to make sure that the overall tax impost on Australian businesses remains globally competitive. That is why we are unapologetically bringing down the company rate for businesses large and small. It is why we are unapologetically bringing about tax breaks for small business. It is why we are unapologetically investing in the future of our infrastructure—road, rail and port. We are unapologetically investing in the future of our skills. We are unapologetically investing in the future of renewable energy in this country, because our country depends on those investments. As the Treasurer reminded us before, it is what we do for the future in bringing about strong economic management we believe in; what we do in bringing about a fairer Australia we believe in; securing Australia for the challenges of the future we believe to be our duty as the elected government of the country—and we are doing so on the basis of securing our international economic reputation and entrenching it for the future.
This year our budget deficit is 2.9 per cent of GDP and coming to surplus in three years. The average of the major advanced economies is 9.5 per cent of GDP. Not one of them is forecast to come into surplus in the next three years. Our debt in 2015 will be 3.4 per cent of GDP. The average of the major advanced economies is 93.9 per cent of GDP in 2015. Our growth in 2010-11 is 3.25 per cent of GDP. The average of the major advanced economies is 2.4 per cent of GDP. Where the rubber really hits the road is on how we actually protected jobs. Unemployment is at 5.3 per cent here; the average of the major advanced economies is 8.4 per cent. In the United States, unemployment is nearly 10 per cent, and in many countries in Europe it is 10 per cent.
These are the values which guide this budget. It is about securing our future; it is about fairness for the future. It is also about strong economic management. And it is about entrenching this country’s international economic reputation, which now remains unparallel across the advanced economies of the world.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to Budget Paper No. 1 at appendix A: ‘Sensitivity of budget estimates to economic developments’, and I quote: ‘The overall impact to the fall in the terms of trade is a decrease in the underlying cash balance of around $2.1 billion in 2010-11 and around $5.1 billion in 2011-12.’ Does the Treasurer agree with his own budget’s assessment that a fall in Australia’s terms of trade would completely wipe out the government’s proposed wafer-thin surpluses?
I think the shadow Treasurer should give up karaoke and take up policy. Every set of budget papers, every budget, contains a sensitivity analysis. This is simply the case in the budget papers every year. The fact there is a sensitivity analysis that says, ‘If this set of events happens it might have that impact,’ does not in any way erode the credibility and the standing of the forecast in this budget. In no way at all does it do that. The forecasts in this budget across the board are cautious, they are credible and they are realistic.
What did the opposition say last year when they were attacking the budget? They claimed our forecasts were too optimistic. They trashed the budget in this House and they trashed it around the country for being too optimistic, because the first refuge of a scoundrel is to trash the forecasts. The forecasts are prepared by the same Treasury that the opposition worked with for something like 12 years. It is the same Treasury that produced sensitivity analyses like that for 12 years. So these are forecasts of the Treasury which are credible and realistic. They are forecasts of the Treasury which match the forecasts of the Reserve Bank generally. They are forecasts which generally match the forecasts of the International Monetary Fund.
But this year like last year, the opposition want people to come in here and somehow believe that there is something wrong with the forecasts, because they cannot get their act together when it comes to economic policy. They cannot tell us when they would bring the budget back to surplus. They cannot tell us what savings they would make in the budget. They cannot answer the most simple questions about an alternative macroeconomic framework because they simply do not have one.
They have been coming into this parliament for years talking about the need for savings whilst they have been up in the Senate blocking the savings that are essential in our budget. They simply are not credible at all when it comes to economic policy, and their having no alternative framework means that they want to come in here and trash the Treasury, trash the Reserve Bank and trash the International Monetary Fund. There is simply no alternative framework among those opposite. They have so little credibility that nobody listens to them any more.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mrs Mary Easson, a former member of this place as the member for Lowe. On behalf of the House I extend to her a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Why is it important that the 2010 budget and forthcoming budgets be framed within the government’s fiscal discipline rules?
I thank the member for Solomon for his question. I also say how delighted I am to see Mary Easson in the chamber today, and I am sure I speak on behalf of many members in saying that. The government has put in place some very strict fiscal rules in order to ensure that we get the budget back in a strong position after the impact of the global financial crisis. The rules that we have put in place are these. First, we will not allow tax as a proportion of the total economy to go above the level we inherited from the former government. What has happened? The levels of tax as a proportion of the economy now and across the forward estimates are substantially lower than the level we inherited from the Howard government. Second, we will not allow spending growth to go beyond a two per cent real increase until such time as the budget returns to surplus. What has happened? We have adhered in this budget to that rule and we have extended it so that now that rule will continue to apply until such time as the budget surplus reaches one per cent of GDP.
Third, when tax revenue recovers from the impact of the global financial crisis—and it has partly recovered—we will not spend that revenue but allow it to help drive the budget back into surplus early. What has happened? That is precisely what has occurred. Finally, new spending will be offset by saving. What has happened? Across the forward estimates period, the aggregate excess of saving above spending is $544 million—half a billion dollars. So all these rules have been adhered to, and one of them has not only been adhered to but been extended.
The result is that we are back in surplus three years ahead of schedule in three years time and the level of debt Australia has will be half of what was initially projected. It will be 6.1 per cent of GDP, which is less than one-tenth of the average of developed world economies.
I notice that the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, was on Insiders last weekend indicating that he would set the bar for the government about when we returned to surplus. He said that it would be reasonable to return to surplus within three or four years. Guess what, Mr Speaker: we have jumped over his bar, we have leaped over that bar, and got the budget heading towards surplus in three years.
I take this opportunity to welcome the new shadow minister for finance, the member for Goldstein, to the podium. He is my fifth shadow minister for finance. I have had five. And who knows—there may be more. I am up against a basketball team. We have had five shadow finance ministers. I shared a platform with the new shadow finance minister last night on Lateline and this morning at the annual accountants breakfast. Do you know the interesting thing, Mr Speaker: in both of these contributions I do not recall the words ‘debt and deficit’ passing the lips of the shadow finance minister. Why? Because the infamous debt and deficit scare campaign is dead—stone dead. What has killed it? The budget is heading back to surplus three years ahead of schedule and debt is peaking at six per cent of GDP. The scare campaign of the opposition has been exposed for the giant fraud that it is.
The opposition has a single political strategy. It is simple and it is straightforward. It is to block, blame and bluster. That is all that the Leader of the Opposition and his team are contributing to Australian politics. There is a lot of rhetoric, there is a lot of fluff and there is a lot of flim flam, but we are approaching the business end of the season where the Australian community is going to start asking for some detail. We have had virtually no detail from the Leader of the Opposition yet, but he has a big test on Thursday night and that is to come up with some detail and to come up with some specific costed savings—not just one-liners and colourful, glib grabs but some specific costed savings.
Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance and also on aspersions being cast on a member: I was present at that breakfast this morning and the shadow finance minister certainly did mention debt and deficit.
The member for Mackellar!
I return to the point I was making. The budget rules the government put in place put a real constraint on spending. They require governments and prospective governments to match spending with savings. We have had a sequence of dog-ate-my homework excuses about when we are going to get some serious savings and when we are going to get some explicit commitments about how the opposition is going to pay for all the promises it is putting forward, but thus far we have had very few commitments. By this stage in 2007, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, had $3 billion worth of explicit savings commitments out there, virtually all of which have since been delivered.
I have a couple of final tips for the Leader of the Opposition. Investments do not hit the bottom line and therefore cannot be used for spending. So, whether it is the Australian Rail Track Corporation equity investment—
Or the NBN?
The member for North Sydney!
or the National Broadband Network, you cannot spend the proceeds by cancelling them. You might like to come up with a glib one-liner suggesting that you can, but you cannot spend the proceeds. My final suggestion is that, if you want to be treated seriously, you have got to have some costed, four-year, over the forward estimates savings in your budget reply to show where the money is coming from.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his comments at a dinner in Perth last week, when he said:
We must broaden the economic base, as China could implode. I studied it, lived there and speak the language. I know China better than anyone here. Its success can swing on one good or bad decision.
Government members interjecting—
Order! Those on my right! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Prime Minister, given the budget assumes continuing strong demand for our resources, particularly from China, what would be the impact on the budget of an economic slowdown in China?
I welcome the member for Curtin and Deputy Leader of the Opposition returning to the subject of China, because the last time she stood at the dispatch box to talk about China I think it was in defence of China’s human rights record, or was it in defence of Chinese human rights activists? It depended on which day we were talking about. One day we were too hard; the next day we were too soft.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition refers to my engagement with the business community of Western Australia. Of course I spoke to them about the long-term challenges which we face in North-East Asia. I said that, therefore, broadening the economic base of Australia by making sure that the corporate tax rate was brought down across the country was a sensible course of action on the part of any reforming government. That means that, if you do face a rising Australian dollar which is affecting the international competitiveness of all companies which are exporting, one way this government can assist in enhancing their competitiveness is to bring down the company rate. That is what we have done.
The second thing I would say in response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is: when she looks at the question of the government’s assumptions, based on Treasury advice, about the future trajectory of commodity prices, these fall at the conservative end of the spectrum based on what market analysts are saying. There are commentators out there in the marketplace who this morning have affirmed and affirmed again that this falls within the range of what most people analyse to be long-term demand for Australian commodities. In fact, the commodity price projections contained within the budget papers, I recall, also after a period of time come down, as you would expect in any rational analysis of where the price would go over a period of time. Therefore, the Treasury, in putting together this analysis, has been entirely mindful of where these prices will go over time.
For example, I would draw her attention to the fact that the budget forecast when it comes to the terms of trade is up 14¼ per cent in 2010-11 and then down 3¾ per cent in 2011-12 and, for the medium term, there is a decline by 20 per cent over 15 years and a return to just under 2006-07 levels. This is the sort of discipline which the Treasury officials apply. The Treasury officials applied it in their provision of advice to the previous government. The only thing that has changed on this occasion is that that does not suit the political case being advanced by that lion of Chinese human rights, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member the Curtin.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What are the government’s plans to increase community access to primary care and health services outside of hospitals?
I thank the member for Hasluck for her question because I know on this side of the House people are delighted with the announcements from last night to invest more money in primary care, the front line of our health system. Whether it is more money for GPs, whether it is more money for infrastructure for general practice or whether it is more money for practice nurses, all of these initiatives are vital for making sure that constituents in our electorates can get the health care they need when they need it.
One of the key initiatives from last night deals with the very fact that we know people do not get sick just between nine and five, Monday to Friday. People need care and access to nurses and doctors after hours. Unfortunately, what many of us might think is anecdotal when people come to our electorate offices and say, ‘I can’t get access to a GP,’ or, ‘My GP stopped opening late on work days,’ or, ‘My GP doesn’t open on the weekends any longer,’ is not anecdotal; this is real.
What we know is that in the last decade, during the watch of the Leader of the Opposition as the health minister, the percentage of doctors providing their own after-hours services reduced from around 50 per cent to 28 per cent. So what we have committed, as part of a $2.2 billion investment into primary care, is the expansion of an online and phone service to be able to get immediate advice from a nurse, follow-up advice from a GP and referral through our Medicare Locals to a local GP if someone who rings the service needs to have a GP visit.
What if you haven’t got one?
I hear an interjection opposite: what if we don’t have one? This is the whole point. This is actually why we are investing millions and millions of dollars in training more GPs, because your leader, when he was the health minister, put a cap on GP training places. That is why we are investing in funding for more than 5,500 new GPs, because electorates like those of the member interjecting do not have enough GPs. He perhaps might ask the Leader of the Opposition why he neglected this issue for so long and left it for us to pick up the pieces.
Of course, those opposite might say, ‘What happens if we don’t have a GP in our electorate right now?’ That means that the constituents—the mums and dads who are worried about a child with a temperature or someone who perhaps does not drive who gets sick at night—will be able to phone up and get advice from a nurse and a GP immediately. Those opposite might be dismissive of this, but anyone who has young children knows that having someone on the end of the line to give them a bit of quick advice—to tell them that it does sound serious and they should go to hospital or that they need not worry and a bit of Panadol might work—is important. These issues are day-to-day issues for our constituents and for all Australians, and those opposite neglected these issues.
What has also been a very significant investment is another $355 million into infrastructure for GP services—more GP superclinics and of course 400 general practices that will be able to expand their own services. I thought that perhaps I might take the opportunity to ask members on the shadow frontbench, as we are progressively opening these superclinics across the country, whether they might have more guts to turn up and represent their electorates than the shadow minister for health did!
Mr Dutton interjecting
I would like to emphasise that on Monday—
Only two are fully operational!
Order!
Two out of 36!
The member for Dickson is warned!
The member for Dickson is appropriately sensitive about this issue because he has a superclinic operating in his electorate that has provided thousands of services to young families who are in his electorate and otherwise have to travel to hospital for services on weekends. But on Monday I am going to Port Stephens to open a superclinic—
Finally!
and I thought perhaps the local member, who has been very supportive in his electorate, would like to attend.
I haven’t received your invitation yet.
I am issuing it to you right now. I would be delighted if you would come.
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Order! The member for Paterson will cease interjecting. The minister will ignore the interjections and address her remarks through the chair.
I cannot let the opportunity pass because I know that the member for Petrie would not forgive me. On Friday we turned the first sod for the Redcliffe superclinic at the hospital site in her electorate. It was covered on the Redcliffe and Bayside Herald front page with, ‘Super boost for GPs: $5 million clinic to ease the strain on hospitals’. What the local community in Redcliffe told us is this will be the first time ever that GPs will be trained in the electorate of Petrie—the first time ever. Twenty medical trainees going through this superclinic, year after year, making sure that the shortages in the region will be able to be met. This is fundamentally good news and I am sure that those communities are very happy with the timetabling of this GP superclinic.
Finally, I would like to make mention of the fact that today is International Nurses Day, and the nurses who work very hard across our country should be congratulated for the hard work that they do. I know that many nurses were very excited about the investments in the budget last night, probably most importantly the $390 million for better supporting practice nurses. These are nurses who work with our doctors in general practice to provide extra services, particularly for chronic disease and prevention. This investment will allow up to 3.8 million additional GP services to be provided because of the time that is freed up while nurses provide important care to members of our community.
I would also like to encourage members of this House—I know the member for Lyons and a number of others have already put in their requests for new GP superclinics. And I am sure that, like the member for Parkes and the former leader of the National Party, John Anderson, who made pretty fast tracks to our doors to ask for a superclinic in Gunnedah, we will have backbenchers and others arguing for these investments to be made in their electorates. We will welcome those requests, we will take each of them seriously and we look forward to providing more support for members of the community who need access to GP and nursing care.
Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. With commodity analysts predicting a glut in global resource production by 2014-15, and with mining companies already paying 33 per cent more tax on their profits than all other Australian companies, how will miners pay double the tax of other companies and still grow at the 20 per cent figure predicted by this government under a new great big mining tax? How can the assumptions in this budget be taken seriously when they are built on such flimsy ground?
I thank the member for Groom for his question, and I do not think he was listening to the answer I gave to an earlier question about the Treasury’s assumptions about the change in commodities prices over the short, medium and long term. This, by the way, is the same Treasury which provided advice on future courses for commodity prices for the previous government.
The other part of his question goes to the underpinning assumptions for the budget itself. This has been the subject of some interesting discussion today, as the member for North Sydney would be well aware. On the underpinning assumptions of the budget 12 months ago, in May 2009, the member for North Sydney had this to say:
The Treasury has some pretty heroic assumptions in their forecasts of how quickly we come out of recession.
Yeah, that’s right!
That was 12 months ago. What did he say today?
Last year the Treasury was immensely pessimistic about the budget.
The budget numbers. Forecasted numbers. Do you understand the difference?
Joe, Joe, Joe. How sloppy can you get?
Government members interjecting—
Order!
You cannot on the one hand last year say that they were monstrously optimistic and then this year say that last year they were monstrously pessimistic. It does not add up. It is a bit like what the member for North Sydney had to say when he set us that benchmark to meet for the budget the other day. When asked on Insiders what is the benchmark the government must meet, he said:
Well they could do it if they tried—
that is, bring the budget into surplus—
in three to four years.
Joe, we are doing it in three.
You won’t!
We actually got to the inner margin of what you set as the benchmark. Can I just say that, in this entire debate about economic credibility, assumptions and the budget, what we see is a federal opposition which is the least economically literate federal opposition we have seen for decades. On the Liberal Party, we also have some interesting comments about the level of literacy and the question of financial conservatism. My attention was drawn to a comment recently, contained in the Sydney Morning Herald, which refers to the economic literacy of the Leader of the Opposition. This is what was said in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, obviously on relevance. How could the Prime Minister’s answer now be relevant when he was asked a question about the issue of resources and how they could be taxed into oblivion and still grow in the budget forecast by 20 per cent a year for the next four years?
Government members interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting
Order, those on my right! The Manager of Opposition Business should ignore taunts if he really wants to hear my response to his point of order. The question did go to how seriously the budget forecast should be taken, which allows a fairly wide response, but I would ask the Prime Minister to relate his material to the question.
I draw my answer to a conclusion. The comment which is contained in the herald reads:
When he lost a fight with Peter Costello in the expenditure review committee over some expensive proposal or other he’d go straight into John Howard’s office to try to get the decision overturned … He never really understood the meaning of fiscal conservatism …
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. On the question of relevance, the Prime Minister must go to relating his material to the question.
Resources have been around for a long time, both when the previous government was in as well as under this government. The point that I am making is that, when it comes to responsible economic management, we have relied upon the same Treasury advice as Peter Costello relied upon. We are relying on the same Treasury advice, which is to serve independently the governments of both political persuasions, and we have acted professionally based on that advice concerning future assumptions for commodity prices. But, as a former long-term cabinet colleague of the Leader of the Opposition said, he never really understood the meaning of the term fiscal conservatism.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for Education and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the investments the government is making in skills through the budget and the importance of these measures for Australia’s productivity?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! If the member for Leichhardt’s fan club on both sides of the chamber can just be a little quieter, I will give the call to the Deputy Prime Minister.
I am certainly a member of the member for Leichhardt’s fan club and I thank him for this important question. Of course, the member for Leichhardt knows, and I have spoken to him on many occasions, about the need for investment in skills in this country, and last night’s budget contains an important skills package. Today I want to highlight just one part of this important skills package. It is the right time to be generating even more investment in skills, as the budget papers show we are moving towards a full employment environment. In this environment, we want to make sure that young people get a start in life, that they get a trade—an opportunity for a start in life.
Last time our country went through an economic downturn, apprenticeship commencements went through the floor. The really bad news is that, after they went through the floor, it took 14 years for commencements to recover—so sharply down and 14 years to recover. As a result of the global recession, apprenticeships were threatened once again. As a government, we became very concerned as we saw signs, in the 12 months following September 2008, like apprentice and trainee commencements falling by 20 per cent—worrying signs for all.
We could have stood back and done nothing in these circumstances, but, just as we took quick and decisive action to support jobs, we took quick and decisive action to support apprenticeships. This included in October 2009 our $100 million Apprentice Kickstart program, designed to reverse the decline in traditional trade commencements, aimed squarely at young Australians leaving school and provided over the summer months. We also invested in a $145 million package to secure Australian apprenticeships for those apprentices who had become out of trade because of the economic circumstances their employer was facing and needed a new opportunity in order to complete their apprenticeship. The great news is that, taken together, these measures have assisted more than 40,000 businesses in national skill shortage areas, enabled more than 49,000 apprentices to remain in work or complete their training and ensured that around 24,400 young apprentices started in the trades over the summer. That is great news.
As a result of last night’s budget, today we are opening the second phase of Apprentice Kickstart. Today, employers can put on a young person and get special new incentives for doing so. The incentives for putting on that young person have more than tripled. We expect this phase of Apprentice Kickstart over the next six months to support 22,500 commencements. We are focusing this initiative on small- and medium-sized businesses, businesses with fewer than 200 employees. Once again, our target is young Australians aged 19 years and under in the key areas of construction, automotive, mechanical engineering, hospitality and electrotechnology. These are real opportunities for young people, available from today.
Today, together with the member for Eden-Monaro and my ministerial colleague Senator Mark Arbib, I went to Country Energy and I met with a young apprentice called Thomas Watson. I met with his supervisor, who started life as an apprentice, a man called John Bruce, and I met with the overall boss, a man who also started his life as an apprentice, Phillip Green. This proves that getting a trade gives you employment support for life. It is the doorway to great opportunities. We have acted decisively to save jobs. We have acted decisively to save skills. Today I ask Australian employers to get in and take advantage of this program and give a young Australian a fantastic start in life through a trade apprenticeship.
My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer endorse the reported remarks of Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ric Battellino, when he said in reference to mining that the best thing that could happen is for one of the big projects to fall over? Given the Treasurer’s very high regard for the Reserve Bank, which project is Mr Battellino referring to—the South Australian Olympic Dam expansion, the LNG project at Gladstone in Queensland or maybe Western Australia’s Yeelirrie uranium mine? Does the Treasurer have a preference for which big mining project should fall over?
No, I do not endorse that statement at all. Our ambition for economic growth in this country is for all our industries and for a very strong mining and mineral-producing industry. In fact, if you look at the material we published last Sunday week, we talked about how we as a country will deal with the two-speed economy that comes from mining boom mark 2. We talked a lot about the mistakes made by those opposite in mining boom mark 1. They failed to put in place the necessary investments in the capacity-producing stuff. They failed to put in place the essential investment in infrastructure and left this country with a very serious infrastructure deficit which has put upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates. That was the legacy that they left to us as we came to power at the end of 2007. This government is determined to put in place an economic framework which will cope with mining boom mark 2. At the moment, we have had the tail end of the global recession on the one hand and a mining boom coming on the other, off the back of very strong growth in this region—not just Chinese growth, not just Indian growth but growth right across the region.
The one thing that sensible people who study these things know is that a greater percentage of global growth is going to come from the Asia-Pacific as we move forward. It is not going to come from Europe, and we have seen evidence of that. The United States is recovering, but what the global economy is waiting for and relying on is greater growth in this region, and that is a great thing for Australia. What it means for Australia is that if we get the domestic settings right we can maximise the prosperity that flows from that and we can spread the opportunities around to ensure that all of our economy grows—not just some parts growing very strongly but all of our economy growing. This is why the Prime Minister talked before about using the revenue from the Resource Super Profits Tax to cut the corporate rate, to do something for small businesses so that we grow together.
So we have an ambition for a very strong mining industry in this country—a fair system of taxation that returns fair value to the Australian people for their resources, not the resources of the mining companies. We have put forward a perfectly reasonable proposition. We are discussing that with the mining industry. We will work our way through those issues. The sorts of statements that are being made by some opposite and some of the industry were made when this matter was raised in the late 1980s. The whole roof of the economy was going to fall in, but it did not. The biggest single project approved in this country’s history was the Gorgon project approved at the end of last year—a $50 billion project approved under a resource profits tax. We on this side of the House will defend the national interest. Our national interest is to make sure that we grow our economy sustainably to make sure that the Australian people get a fair share of their resources and to make sure that we grow together, and that is what we are doing.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How is the government supporting working families?
I thank the member for Petrie very much for her question, because this is a government that delivers for working families. Earlier today I introduced legislation into the parliament for Australia’s first paid parental leave scheme, a milestone reform and a major win for parents and their babies—and our scheme is fair to business. The Leader of the Opposition, by contrast, wants to impose a great big new tax on business to pay for his paid parental leave scheme. This government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is economically responsible and was funded in last year’s budget. Australian families have had to wait far too long for a national paid parental leave scheme, after 12 years of inaction from those opposite. It is this government that is going to deliver Australia’s first national paid parental leave scheme.
Last night’s budget builds on this major reform for Australian families. Another round of tax cuts will help Australian working families. A worker on $50,000 per year will be $1,750 better off as a result of three rounds of tax cuts. And a new standard deduction for work related expenses will make tax time that much simpler for six million families. The standard deduction will be $500 in 2012-13 and $1,000 in 2013-14. The standard deduction will reduce a family’s taxable income. As taxable income reduces, family payments increase. This will see around 280,000 families receiving on average around $250 more per year in family tax benefit part A in addition to the benefit that they receive from the standard deduction. This will be a double win for Australian families. It will also see around 15,000 additional families become eligible for family tax benefit part A for the first time as a result of having a lower taxable income.
Families will also be able to claim a tax deduction equal to 50 per cent of interest earned on $1,000 in deposits. These are deposits in approved banks, building societies and credit unions. This will lower the taxable incomes and taxes of an estimated 5.7 million depositors, three-quarters of whom have incomes of less than $80,000 a year. Around 200,000 families paying less tax on their deposit interest will have reduced taxable income, and these families will receive around $85 more in family tax benefit part A each year. This is a government that continues to deliver for Australian working families through paid parental leave that will support parents and their children and through a fiscally responsible budget that will see more families benefit from family payments.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s remarks on radio 2GB today:
The surplus in this budget is not dependent upon the resource super profits tax.
Of the $12 billion of mining tax revenue the Treasurer claims to collect in the budget forward estimates, only $9.8 billion is allocated for specific spending. Isn’t it the case that the Treasurer’s supposed surpluses do rely on at least $3.2 billion of unallocated mining tax revenue? If not, where is the money going?
Very sloppy again, Joe.
The Treasurer will refer to members by their parliamentary titles.
In fact, all of the initiatives we have announced that are dependent on that do add up to the revenue over the forward estimates, so I do not know what figures you are reading. But one thing I do know is that we are not doing in this budget what those opposite always did in election year budgets. I have done a bit of research about spending and what has happened in previous budgets. Between the Liberal Party’s 2006 budget and their 2007 election year budget, they committed almost $90 billion in new policy. Think about that: $90 billion between their 2006 budget and their 2007 election year budget.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer in the opening remarks to his answer admitted that he did not know the answer to the question, so therefore how could he possibly be relevant to the question he has been asked? He is blathering on trying to fill in—
The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to the question. The Treasurer knows of his responsibility to relate his material to the question.
I certainly am. It was a question about spending. Between the Liberal Party’s 2006 budget and their 2007 election year budget they committed an extra $90 billion. What have we done between the last budget and this one in terms of extra spending? We have offset the lot—game, set and match.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism. Will the minister inform the House about the benefits of the resource superprofits tax for the resources sector and the Australian economy?
I thank the member for Isaacs for his question. On behalf of the Australian community last year I had the privilege of being one of the signatories witnessing the biggest ever investment in Australia’s history in a single project, the Gorgon LNG project, which is now bringing benefits to many businesses in Australia and opportunities for employment and training to thousands of Australians. That investment decision proved that taking on a fight 25 years ago, in terms of putting in place a tax regime for the petroleum industry, meant that we actually got the balance right. It is in that context I can say that no-one can deny that the resources sector is a key part of Australia’s future. The current debate is about getting the balance right. The difference between the government and the opposition is that we actually believe the Australian community at the moment is not getting a fair share with respect to its return on the development of its national resources from a non-renewable sector point of view. I simply say that the government is absolutely committed to ongoing engagement for the resources sector for the purposes of getting the balance which not only means we continue to attract investment but also guarantees that the Australian community gets a fair return for the development of its resources that can also be used to invest in our future, invest in company tax cuts, invest in infrastructure and invest in skills, to name a few opportunities.
Let us go to some of the scare campaigns at the moment with respect to the supposed impact on the Australian economy of what the government has announced to date. I start by going to the Treasury’s independent modelling by KPMG Econtech—I might say, the preferred economic modeller of the previous government. Let us deal with a few facts with respect to their modelling. I go to that modelling which says that cutting the company tax rate to 28 per cent and introducing the resources superprofits tax, combined with the removal of the impact of royalties, would actually expand mining output by 6.6 per cent in the long run. It also goes on to say:
All other industries are expected to expand by 0.3 per cent in the long run.
The report further says that the combined effect of introducing the resources superprofits tax and cutting the company tax rate by 2 percentage points will add 0.7 per cent to Australia’s GDP over the next five to 10 years. That independent modelling clearly indicates that this reform will strengthen the Australian economy as a whole.
That is no different, I might say, to the history of the petroleum resource rent tax, which tells the same story: the industry has flourished as a result of the tough tax debate we took on 25 years ago. I appreciate that, from the government’s point of view, this is going to be a long, tough tax debate. That is because our government is absolutely committed to getting the balance right—not only ensuring appropriate investment for Australia that creates jobs and prosperity but also correctly ensuring, unlike the opposition leader, who finds economics boring, and actually guaranteeing the Australian community a fair return for the development of its resources.
We as a government stand in support of the Australian community’s right for a fair return for the development of their resources. The opposition, unlike the Western Australian Premier, currently believes that the resources sector should not pay higher tax for the opportunity to develop our resources. I am pleased to say this government stands in support of the Australian community in ensuring they get a fair return for the development of their resources. The opposition leader should hang his head in shame. He is more concerned about corporate donations than the proper return on the development of Australia’s resources.
The member for North Sydney?
Mr Speaker, in reference to an earlier question I should have said $8.8—
Government members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order! The member for North Sydney has the call.
I seek leave to table the last page of the response to Henry, which identifies that the government will have over $3.2 billion of unallocated money.
Leave not granted.
The member for Menzies?
Mr Speaker, I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy to table the modelling that he was quoting from in his answer.
Was the minister quoting from a document?
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Is the document a public document?
It is a public document entitled TAX POLICY STATEMENT: STRONGER.FAIRER.SIMPLER A tax plan for the future. I urge the member for Menzies to read this document. He might actually learn something about the—
Order! The member will resume his seat. The member for Menzies?
A good try by the minister, but he was quoting from the modelling. He should at least table the modelling.
Order! The minister has indicated what he was quoting from.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, following last night’s budget, following the COAG agreement with the states, and following your visits to hospitals—including being the first Prime Minister ever inside a Lyne electorate hospital—
Honourable members interjecting—
Well, credit where it’s due! Prime Minister, will you now commit to three critical steps for the growth regions of Australia, including: (1) local input into decisions being made now around boundaries for local hospital networks; (2) a long overdue commitment to full, 100 per cent equity of funding for growth regions; and (3) an immediate injection of capital for bed shortages in growth regions?
I thank the member for Lyne for his question. He is right that I had the opportunity to visit the Port Macquarie Base Hospital, in his electorate, on two occasions—first to speak with his local health experts on the needs of their particular hospital. It is a growth region; there are a huge number of people moving there. But it was one of those things that have been left behind in longterm planning. That is not the particular fault of one side of politics or the other in the New South Wales government, but it frankly has not kept pace with the longterm needs of that growth region.
One of the things I was also able to do when I visited the honourable member’s electorate was to announce an allocation of $5 million or thereabouts for, I think, a second linear accelerator, in the Port Macquarie Base Hospital. This doubles the cancer treatment services available to his constituents, given what is currently there. Of course, there is more to be done. That is part and parcel of a much wider program of regional integrated cancer care centres, announced by the Minister for Health and Ageing a month or so ago, which went to some 22 different locations across the country. In fact, Bunbury, in Western Australia, was one of the recipients; Tamworth, I seem to recall, was another recipient; along with other areas right across the country, to improve cancer services in regional areas.
Mr Truss interjecting
I note the interjection from the Leader of the National Party that it did not go to his electorate. This is a $560 million investment which went nationwide, to seats where this government has no representatives and is unlikely to obtain representatives in the future. It was based on a needs analysis in the health department. If you look at places like Bunbury, if you look at places like Tamworth, if you look at places we have located these regional cancer care centres, you see that these are important centres for the Australian population—and the one core value at work is that people in non-metro Australia should have access to decent cancer care. The overwhelming feedback from them is: why should we have to travel to our capital cities when we get diagnosed with one form of cancer or another? It is bad enough getting a cancer diagnosis. Having to rip up your family, go to the capital city for weeks, sometimes months, on end, to get even basic diagnostics or cancer treatment, is one of the reasons many people do not bother. Do you know what the terrible statistic is? And I say this to the Leader of the National Party: if you live in non-metro Australia, in regional and remote Australia, you are three times more likely to die within the first five years of your diagnosis of cancer than if you live in one of our capital cities. That is unjust. It is wrong. That is why the Minister for Health and Ageing announced a $560 million investment right across the country.
The first of the three points contained in the honourable member’s question went to the input into the definition of local hospital authority boundaries. That is an important matter when it comes to the proper allocation of resources to, for example, the Port Macquarie Base Hospital. I have been on the record already as saying that the area in which this hospital is currently located is too big. In our discussions with the New South Wales government they have concurred that these current areas are far too large to be sensitive to local health needs. That is why a fundamental reform will occur. When it comes to Port Macquarie Base Hospital, therefore, it is critical that the needs of that region become central to the local health authority which is constructed in that area. We will be reflecting that view to our friends in the New South Wales government when those delineation questions occur.
The second point he raised was about growth funding. It is a growth region. The reason we have introduced activity based funding is to make sure that the money flows to those hospitals which are actually delivering the services. When I spoke to his local health professionals up there they welcomed activity based funding because, rather than just being given an administrative grant once a year—they are out there working hard delivering a large number of elective surgery procedures and treating a whole lot of patients—the money will flow after the number of services they deliver. Therefore, the overall allocation of resources to that hospital would go up. Therefore, introducing activity based funding for the first time in New South Wales—and for the first time in every state except Victoria—will assist hospitals such as his at Port Macquarie get a proper investment of funds consistent with the delivery of services in those hospitals.
The third point is about immediate investment. I draw the honourable member’s attention to the $7.2 billion additional investment outlined in the Treasurer’s statement last night. This is investment in more hospital beds, more doctors and more nurses and the enhancement of elective surgery procedures and accident and emergency. In his particular hospital, noting the shortage of beds which exists, I am very mindful of the fact that New South Wales would have received an allocation of approximately, I think, one third of the 1,300 sub-acute beds which are fully funded in the budget. I would therefore strongly suggest to the honourable member that he make his representations very clearly known about the need for additional beds in his area, because I have spoken to his local health professionals and they know that their hospital—Port Macquarie Base Hospital—is at its limit.
The last thing I would say in response to the honourable member’s question is to do with a point referred to before by the Minister for Health and Ageing. It goes to the other arm of healthcare reform—that is, the reform of primary care. The health minister last night, to the derision of those opposite, announced details for the large-scale expansion of not just investments in GP superclinics but further investments in GP practices. Also, if you look carefully at the statement which has been put out on nurses you will see that we provide further investments into GPs and their local clinics to make it more financially possible for them to engage practice nurses in those clinics.
These are really important reforms for delivering GP related services on the ground. Again, the honourable member, I am sure, in consultation with his local GPs, will make a submission to the government—the health department—to make sure that proper funding flows on the basis of needs analysis across the country for the enhancement of GPs and GP related services, and we welcome his expression of interest in it. In fact, I would say to all members opposite: if you are facing problems and challenges in your electorates when it comes to GP services, you should take seriously what the Minister for Health and Ageing has put forward and get your submissions in from your local GPs so that we can enhance and roll out a much more flexible delivery of health care services for the entire Australian community.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How will the government’s $1 billion investment in rail freight in the budget help get trucks off the roads, improve national productivity and create jobs for regional Australia?
I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and his ongoing interest in these issues. Indeed, last night’s budget delivered another $1 billion injection into the Australian Rail Track Corporation. That lifts our contribution to some $3.4 billion over six years—twice as much funding as was given for the national rail freight system by the previous government in half the time. Twice the funding in half the time! This will support some 1,500 jobs in regional Australia. We are fixing the rail lines between Maitland and the Queensland border—some 58 separate projects towards the border; in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales; between Whyalla and Broken Hill and between Broken Hill and Parks; between Albury, down through Melbourne to Geelong; and between Gheringhap and Maroona and between Koolyanobbing and Kalgoorlie in Western Australia. We are straightening the rail lines, we are building new passing loops and we are ripping out the old wooden sleepers—
Some of your backbench colleagues!
and replacing them with new concrete sleepers. Stick to trying to add up, Joe.
We are doing all of this in order to raise productivity, support jobs and ensure a national return. This is an investment. This will lead to higher productivity and a higher return to the Australian Rail Track Corporation over a period of time. It is good for jobs and good for the economy, particularly in regional Australia. This brings our nation-building investment in rail, roads and ports to some $37 billion. We have now more than quadrupled the investment in rail and more than doubled the investment in roads over a similar period of time. And we have done all this within the budget and fiscal framework of ensuring that we return to surplus in just three years.
Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, given that the government had a $1 billion blow-out in the computers in schools program, a $1 billion fix-it job in the home insulation program and a $1 billion blow-out in the border protection measures, why should anyone believe that in three years time there will not be a single new policy announcement that costs $1 billion or a budget blow-out that wipes out the $1 billion surplus?
As I have outlined to the House earlier today, we have put in place a very strict fiscal discipline. And we are adhering to the strict fiscal discipline. We have made cuts—some of them have been painful—and we have restrained spending right across the forward estimates. Not only that, but, as the finance minister was saying before, we intend to do that and extend that out until the budget comes back to one percentage point of GDP.
We are doing something that those opposite were utterly incapable of doing, particularly at the height of a boom. We have a strict fiscal discipline in place, which has brought this budget back to surplus in three years—and three years early. And we have halved debt. We have put forward a credible plan. It is so ironic for those opposite to ask a question like that. When are they going to bring the budget back to surplus? Can they answer that question? We look forward to Thursday night for a few answers from those opposite.
My question is to the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister advise the House of the initiatives for small business which are part of the government’s new tax plan and how these initiatives have been received?
I would like to thank my friend and colleague the member for Braddon for his question and for his continued commitment to small business, the backbone of northern Tasmania. The Rudd government supported small business through the global recession, the deepest global recession in 75 years. We did that through the economic stimulus package, including the small business tax break. Now we want to support small business through the recovery phase and that is what we are determined to do. From 1 July 2012 every small business in this country would get the ability to write-off the value of any asset up to $5,000 instantly—not spread over time, but instantly, in the year in which they buy it. That is a very good initiative for every small business in this country.
I refer to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition when he announced that they would oppose these small business tax breaks by denying the funding that would be used to fund those small business tax breaks. The opposition leader said that only incorporated small businesses, only companies, would benefit from the tax initiatives that have been announced. That is completely untrue. Sole traders, partnerships and companies all would benefit from the ability to write-off assets to the value of $5,000 each. In addition to that, the government would provide a head-start reduction in the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent for all incorporated small businesses—that is, 720,000 incorporated small businesses. So 2.4 million out of 2.4 million would get the instant write-off; 720,000 would get this small business tax reduction head start.
I was asked about reaction to it. Reaction, I am pleased to report, has been very favourable indeed. The Council of Small Business of Australia said:
The new tax measures are set to help improve small business cash flow, support increases in production and productivity and promote innovation and entrepreneurial activity.
That is good. That is terrific. Even just yesterday, the Australian Newsagents Federation issued a warning that said:
The Australian Newsagents’ Federation (ANF) is concerned that small businesses may lose the urgently needed tax relief that has been recently announced by the Federal Government.
How would they lose that initiative, that tax relief? They would lose it at the hands of the opposition leader. The opposition leader has said that he will try to use the coalition’s numbers in the Senate to block the passage of the Resource Super Profits Tax, which is financing these small business tax breaks. What has the opposition leader got against small business? He does not care about small business because it is the revenue source. Let us find a little bit more about reactions to this tax initiative and the stance of the opposition leader on it. When he made his headland speech very recently on 30 March he said this:
The economic stimulus wasn’t necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession.
He is saying that economic stimulus was not necessary. We know their position on the economic stimulus that supported small business. They are opposed to it. They voted against it and they remain opposed to economic stimulus. He said that if you look across the Tasman New Zealand has done just as well as Australia. New Zealand had five quarters of negative growth. New Zealand went into recession. The opposition leader says, ‘If it is good for New Zealand it is good for Australia.’ This is a man who has cultivated this ironman image. He has an iron fist in the face of small business. He has an iron fist in the face of working Australians and says: ‘Here’s a bit of discipline for you, pal. Here’s one up the bracket. We’ll show you a little bit of discipline. We’ll make you hurt. We’ll make you work harder.’ That is the attitude of the opposition leader, because he is extreme, he is erratic, he is risky and he is dangerous. He is an extreme, erratic, risky, dangerous opposition leader and he would be an extreme, erratic, risky and dangerous Prime Minister. He betrayed small businesses and the Australian people during the global economic recession and he wants to betray small business and the Australian people during the recovery. The Rudd government is the best friend that small business has ever had.
Order! I am not sure a standing order covers copyright on sloganeering, but anyway.
My question is to the Treasurer and I refer to page 6-32 of Budget Paper No. 1, which says:
Cleaner fuels scheme expenses are expected to increase from 1 July 2011, due to the commencement of payments in relation to gaseous fuels, particularly LPG, made as part of the phase-in of effective fuel taxation.
Will the Treasurer inform the House what the new excise tax rate to be applied to LPG used in motor vehicles will be, particularly the family car?
I have been informed that the changes that are contained in that commentary in the budget are a result of the decision of the former government. I am happy to get back to the honourable member with the details he has asked for.
It’s your budget! He doesn’t know what’s in his budget!
Order! The member for North Sydney will contain himself if he wants to participate in his matter of public importance, coming on shortly.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. How will the budget help encourage personal and national savings, and what stands in the way of Australians receiving the benefits of these important reforms?
I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. The government does believe it is important to provide assistance and support to Australians who are saving for the future. As the Treasurer announced last night, the government is improving the taxation treatment of savings by Australians by cutting the tax rate on their savings by 50 per cent for the first $1,000 of savings. Almost 5.7 million Australian taxpayers will benefit from this measure, and around one-third of the beneficiaries will have incomes below $37,000. Importantly, about 3.3 million Australians will have all of their interest income below the $1,000 cap, therefore receiving the full discount.
For too long interest on deposits and other mechanisms has been unfavourably treated compared to capital gains, which are already concessionally taxed. Those capital gains are often out of reach of low- and middle-income earners. This is a very important measure in improving the equity of our tax system. For a taxpayer with a taxable income of around $50,000, the measure will reduce their annual tax liability by up to $177.50. If they reinvest this benefit into their savings account, after five years they will have almost an extra $1,000 in savings.
This measure, announced last night, is a very important complement to the superannuation measures announced by the government on 2 May and also contained in last night’s budget. These measures boost superannuation not only by increasing the superannuation guarantee but also by giving the contributions tax back to low-income earners and allowing people who are over 50 with low balances in their superannuation accounts to top them up at a concessional tax rate. These are all measures funded by the resource rent superprofits tax, as is the tax concession on savings more generally. They are all measures that the Liberal Party would deny Australians; all measures that the Liberal Party would try and stop Australians having the benefit of. We know that the Leader of the Opposition does not support Australians saving for the future. We know he does not support the increase in the superannuation guarantee, and we also know he does not support tax concessions for superannuation. This is what he had to say in his book, Battlelines:
At some point, saving money by keeping people off the pension while forgoing revenue to encourage them to make alternative provision becomes counter-productive.
He says:
It could be simpler and fairer for the revenue provided in superannuation concessions to be paid as a pension instead.
So the Leader of the Opposition would wipe out the tax concessions on the savings of millions of Australians. He would wipe out the tax concessions of people nearing retirement so he could fund the abolition of the age pension means test. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer, in what we have seen today, have engaged in what has to go down as the weakest response to a federal budget in living memory; the weakest and most pathetic response we have seen in this House on the day after a budget for a long, long time. What we see from the Leader of the Opposition is a plan to cut a swathe through the retirement incomes of Australians, and oppose this government’s measures to improve incentives for Australians to save. The Leader of the Opposition said this morning on AM:
Everyone will know where we stand. They’ll also know what we’re against …
Well, they are against Australians saving more. We know that. We know they are against superannuation. We know they are against somebody who is aged 30 now on average weekly earnings having $108,000 more in their retirement income. We know this risky and erratic man wants to cut a swathe through the retirement incomes of Australians and oppose incentives for hardworking Australians to look after themselves and save more.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I am sure I speak for all members of this House in congratulating the Conservative Party and the liberal party and Mr David Cameron on forming a government in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the marriage of Conservatives and liberals in the United Kingdom will be as long and as happy as it has been in this country.
Mr Speaker, also on indulgence, it is right of course that the Leader of the Opposition congratulate his political colleague Mr Cameron on becoming the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. All Australians have a deep affection for the UK. When I telephoned Mr Cameron this morning, I congratulated him on behalf of all Australians on becoming the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Are you going to leak the conversation?
Order! The honourable member for Dickson!
I also said to him that the Australia-UK relationship is one which goes above and beyond party politics.
Did he get you off the phone?
The member for Dickson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Dickson then left the chamber.
I said that the Australia-UK relationship is one which prospers and has prospered since we had Prime Ministers of different persuasions in our respective capitals way back to the time of the war. Mr Cameron indicated he would like to get down to Australia at some stage. We look forward to the foreign secretary in the making, William Hague, making his way to Australia as well. We do a lot with the British in Afghanistan and we do a lot with the British in the G20. This will be a good relationship between Australia and the UK, as it has been in the past and will be in the future. Can I conclude by paying my particular public respects to, of course, Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown has served as a distinguished Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and as a staunch ally and defender of Australian interests as well. Can I say also that his role in chairing the G20 meeting in London in April of 2009 was a pivotal event in making sure that the global economic recession then did not slide into something much, much worse. He will go down as a person whose contribution at that critical time in all of our economic destinies was that of a true statesman. I thank the House.
by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 13 May 2010 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 12 noon on Monday 24 May 2010 unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.
Question agreed to.
Documents are presented as listed in the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following documents:Migration Act 1958—Section 4860—Assessment of detention arrangements—2010 Personal identifiers 581/10 to 589/10—Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman’s reports.Government response to Ombudsman’s reports
Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government’s budget to secure Australia’s economic future.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I note that the Treasurer has again refused to debate me on a budget matter. It should not come as a surprise that he has sent the howdy-doody doll, the pretend Paul Keating, out to do his bidding yet again. Yet again the Treasurer has turned away the opportunity to debate me about issues relating to the nation’s finances or the nation’s economy. That should not be a surprise because we have a Treasurer that is more interested in spin than substance given the various different prebudget spins that he used. At first only a few weeks ago, on 19 March, he said it was ‘pie in the sky’ to contemplate surpluses earlier than those that had been previously forecast. He said that to Kerry O’Brien. When I actually wrote an op-ed in the Australian Financial Review outlining how the government could in fact bring the budget back to surplus earlier, not only was that ridiculed but in fact the Treasurer was so unimpressed with that contribution that he tried to do it last night in the budget. He has failed the test, and the test is reality. This government has a tendency to make promises that it cannot deliver. He has a tendency to create expectations that cannot be met. Consider the rather undignified way in which the Treasurer stood up in the chamber today and urged us to come clean on when we would deliver a surplus, when in fact as Treasurer he has never delivered a surplus and as Treasurer he never will deliver a surplus. Yet he is calling on us to give him the path, to set the route, to delivering a surplus some time into the future.
Labor will never deliver a surplus under Kevin Rudd. Labor will not do so because even after last year’s budget with a $54 billion deficit, which was the biggest spending budget in a generation, and even after last year’s budget where the government predicted the end of the world as we know it—so even under the terms of those budget parameters—in this budget the government has increased spending by $26 billion. If you thought they were throwing in the steak knives, wait because there is more. There is a 2010-11 budget that will spend an extra $26 billion. In fact, the 2010-11 budget forecasts a massive $40.8 billion deficit. It took 25 minutes for the Treasurer to get the words out last night of a deficit of $40.8 billion. Do you know why? Because the fact of the matter is that, when they actually deliver a surplus according to their own forecasts, by that stage this government would have borrowed over $700 million a week to fund their deficit. That is $100 million per day, every day, to fund their deficit. Then the hard task of repaying the $93 billion starts. What is it with Labor and $90 billion debts? Anna Bligh now has apparently something like $90 billion of debt in Queensland. Paul Keating left $96 billion of debt. If a change of government does come at the next election, how much is the Labor Party debt going to be? Around $90 billion. It is something that is fixed in the DNA of the Labor Party: leave the debt and get the coalition to do the hard yards of paying off the debt. That is because the Labor Party loves to spend money.
Of the entire budget numbers, of all the budget parameters, of all the budget estimates, there is only one number you can rely on Labor to deliver, and that is how much they are going to spend. But it goes even further. That is not even an accurate figure from time to time, because in 12 months under this government we have had blow-outs on the NBS. We have had a $1 billion-plus blow-out on the PBS. We are now spending $1 billion to fix up their failed border protection policy. We are now spending $1 billion to fix up their pink batt program—what a disaster that was, costing four lives. Now we are spending $500 million on a new health bureaucracy. What upsets me most about that spending program is that only a few weeks ago Kevin Rudd solemnly promised the Australian people that there would be no new health bureaucracy associated with his hospitals plan. That is what he promised. Well, he misled the Australian people—$500 million on a new health bureaucracy.
This is the Prime Minister who said that the greatest moral, social and economic challenge of our time was dealing right now with climate change. Of course, what happens? He dumps the ETS. Again, we remain a little confused, as Australians would be, with last night’s budget. The Treasurer spent a lot of time talking about the emissions trading scheme and dealing with climate change, but it was not in the budget numbers. Let us get this right: last year, the government had the ETS in the budget numbers but they failed to deliver it. This year, they have not got it in the budget numbers but they say they are going to deliver it. This is everything about Labor. Do you know why they took it out of their budget numbers? Because it would have added a full one per cent of GDP to their expenditure and about the same, one per cent of GDP, to their revenue, which would have made them by far one of the biggest governments in recent times.
The government set the parameters on expenditure and revenue. They could not meet those parameters three weeks ago, so they go into a flat panic and start to change everything that they promised. Remember the double drop-off for mums at the last election. The government were going to deliver more than 200 child-care centres. They dropped off the double drop-off. They dropped it off. Those child-care centres—whoosh—disappeared. We remember that they were going to have pink batt program mark 2. Pink batt mark 1 was such a successful program that they wanted to do it all again. They were chiding us to support program mark 2. We did not agree to that—and, thank God, we did not, because they could not hold that policy for 24 days, let alone 24 months.
When it comes to expenditure, the Labor Party never let you down on the programs from the last election. Remember computers in schools—a $1 billion program; it is now $2 billion, probably for half the number of computers. Remember the $150 million solar panel program. It blew out by $850 million. Everything seems to be $1 billion. Everything rounds out at $1 billion. There is $1 billion extra on computers in schools, $1 billion extra on border protection, $1 billion to fix up pink batts, and the government is going to deliver $1 billion surplus in three years time. As if that is a monstrous figure to Labor—a $1 billion surplus in three years time! Roughly, it is somewhere between one-third and one-quarter of one per cent of expenditure under Labor.
The heroic deed out of last night’s budget is that Labor are laying claim to a budget surplus they will never deliver. Labor are laying claim to something three years in the future, and they are doing it heroically as if they have been the poor sods that have had to carry the whole world on their shoulders over the last 12 months. Kevin Rudd saved the world, and now Kevin Rudd is redefining the world as a world that revolves around his spending promises and, today, a world that he says revolves around his values. The Prime Minister is a person who does not have values when it comes to the management of the country. The Prime Minister used the most powerful words a Prime Minister could invoke: ‘the greatest, moral, social and economic challenge of our time’. Imagine if Keating, Hawke, Howard, Whitlam, Fraser, John Curtin, Ben Chifley or Robert Menzies were to use words as powerful as those—you would walk into the trenches with them, you would walk out of the trenches with them, you would follow them to the end of the earth because, as our Prime Minister of Australia, they are using wartime words that declare the greatest challenge for our nation in the view of our leader. And then the Prime Minister dumped that. He claimed just before the dumping that you would be a political coward if you did not move now. The Prime Minister has defined his own person. He is a political coward.
The Prime Minister said: ‘It is the greatest moral, social and economic challenge of our time.’ I will tell you what the greatest moral, social and economic challenge of our time is: it is to get rid of Kevin Rudd. That is our great challenge. And we are going to do it because the Prime Minister is reckless. The Prime Minister is reckless with his words. The Prime Minister is reckless with his actions. The Prime Minister is reckless with his spending. Australians are going to pay a heavy price, because it is not just about the $100 million every day that this government is borrowing in order to spend between now and 2012-13; it goes beyond that. It is a $93 billion debt, with a $6 billion interest bill every year. That is $6 billion that cannot be spent on health, education, national security or defence. It is $6 billion that is not available every year to help the most vulnerable and the most needy in our community.
This government talks about caring but it does not care. This government talks big on rhetoric but it is not a government that is built on substance. It is not a government that is built on values. We have come to the conclusion, as have the Australian people, that the more the government talks about values, the fewer values it has. The more the government talks about courage, oh what little courage it has. The more the government talks about fiscal conservatism—as the Leader of the Opposition identified today—one wonders why it is that they suddenly become fiscal conservatives around election time. It is because the Prime Minister is a chameleon.
Between elections, the Prime Minister spends recklessly. He spends money on a whole range of different things. One that we happened to come across in the budget papers only last night was a $10 million grant to a trade union for an education fund. It is a one-off $10 million grant to one of the Prime Minister’s anti-Work Choices campaign mates, the Trade Union Education Foundation, for the development and delivery of national workplace education programs. Strike me light! Of all the things you could spend $10 million on, a development and delivery program for national workplace education initiatives is the one that would ring the bells.
I was at a fundraiser for Charlie Teo’s Cure for Life on Saturday night where I heard the most distressing stories, as did a thousand other people, about people who have suffered brain tumours. Ninety-four per cent of people who suffer a brain tumour die. It is very sad. As the people from Cure for Life were desperately trying to raise money from the audience I thought to myself: ‘Wouldn’t a million dollars make a huge difference here? Wouldn’t a million dollars or $10 million or $100 million or a billion dollars make a huge difference to the lives of so many people if it were money well spent?’ That is why my colleagues and I get so damned angry about the waste. That is why we get so angry about the government’s spending $1 billion fixing up a pink batts program, spending $1 billion fixing up a failed border protection program and spending $500 million on new health bureaucrats. We get upset because the job of doing the right thing for Australia is unfinished.
Money is precious and our future is precious, but we have a Prime Minister who is careless and reckless. He is reckless with our money and careless with his words. We stand for the right of the Australian people to a prosperous and vibrant land in the future, but the government is doing everything it can to destroy the opportunities for our children and beyond.
We have heard a lot from the opposition about deficits in recent times, but we have a shadow Treasurer with a massive credibility deficit in this country. We have a shadow Treasurer who cannot make a basic or simple point about the budget papers or the budget. You know an opposition is having difficulty on the day after a federal budget is brought down and you know they are not attacking matters of substance in the budget when they start attacking the forecasts, when they start attacking the Treasury modellers and when they say, ‘Our biggest problem with this budget is the forecasts; our biggest problem is the modelling.’ That is always the case with an opposition. You know they are in trouble when they start doing that. But it is particularly the case with this opposition, because this shadow Treasurer has form.
We had projections and forecasts in last year’s budget, as we do in every budget, and the shadow Treasurer came out then and said they were wrong. He said, ‘We don’t believe the forecasts; we don’t believe the projections.’ On 13 May last year he said:
The Treasury has some pretty heroic assumptions in their forecasts for how quickly we come out of this recession.
Of course, forecasts and projections are not an exact science. Things can change. But last year’s forecasts and projections were the Treasury’s best estimates. They were conservative. They were the best indication that the Treasury could give about what would happen to the budget and the economy. We know now that they were not exactly right, but they certainly were not ‘heroic’. They certainly were not too optimistic. The shadow Treasurer now has an even bigger credibility problem because he is trying to rewrite history. He is trying to airbrush the transcript. He is trying to rewrite what he said 12 months ago in order to boost his credibility today. He tried to do this just yesterday, almost 12 months exactly from the day on which he said that the Treasury’s estimates last year were too optimistic. He said this:
They were saying, and we were taking their advice, as you were, that this was the end of the world. Well, it wasn’t the end of the world.
Last year the shadow Treasurer said the Treasury was too optimistic, and now he is saying that last year they were too pessimistic. So the shadow Treasurer has a credibility deficit problem of Greek proportions. If Standard and Poor’s were rating the credibility deficit of the shadow Treasurer they would give it junk bond status because he has no credibility. There is a yawning credibility gap when it comes to his statements about this budget, and this is before we get to the shadow Treasurer’s comments about how long it would take this government to return to surplus. In his famous interview on Sunday on Insiders, he was asked by Barry Cassidy:
What’s a reasonable timeframe, a reasonable timetable for returning to surplus?
The shadow Treasurer replied:
Well they could do it if they tried in three to four years … But the thing is Barrie they have locked in five to six years of deficits for just three months of negative economic growth—five to six years of deficits.
That is a pretty spectacular own goal from the shadow Treasurer—the alternative Treasurer of this country. The decent thing for the shadow Treasurer to do after he said that on Sunday would be to say, ‘Well, I said if they tried they could do it in three years, and they have. Well done. I said if they made cuts and made an appropriate fiscal policy setting then they could do it in three years, and they have done it. So good on them. Well done.’ But this shadow Treasurer would never do that, and this Leader of the Opposition would never let him. That is why this shadow Treasurer has a massive credibility deficit.
The opposition does not want to talk about the return to surplus, but I do. I want to talk about this budget’s projections and this budget’s forecasts because they are so important. But the shadow Treasurer will raise every other issue that he can think of to avoid talking about the projections for return to surplus because it has undermined the very centrepiece of the opposition’s political campaign. It has undermined the very centrepiece of everything they have said for the last two years. Everything the opposition have said about the government’s fiscal settings lies in tatters.
The fact of the matter is that, when this country was faced with a massive downturn in the world, the worst downturn in 75 years, the global financial crisis, we took the view that it was necessary and prudent to stimulate the economy. We did that because we felt it was the best way to keep unemployment as low as possible, but we also did it because we felt it was the best way to keep government finances as robust as they could be for as long as possible. We knew that, if you had a long and sustained downturn with unemployment higher than necessary, government revenue would go down, government expenditure would go up and you would have a bigger deficit for longer than you needed. We knew that. We made the judgment that it was necessary to stimulate the economy—yes, to go into deficit and, yes, to stimulate the economy through expansionary policies but to do so in order to maintain and protect government finances in the medium term by avoiding a long, prolonged and deep downturn.
The opposition took many positions on this. It took them a long time to work out what their position was, but eventually they decided that this stimulus would not work. The shadow Treasurer and the then Leader of the Opposition said it would not create one job, it would not work and it would not stimulate the economy and they opposed it. Fair enough—that was their position, but their position today lies in tatters. They said the government would lead us to what they called monstrous, unimaginable debt and huge deficits. They warned that Australia may go into default. They warned that catastrophe would rain down upon us because this government dared to stimulate the economy to keep unemployment low and to protect finances in the long run. They warned of calamity and it has not happened.
In fact, something quite the opposite has happened. We have a deficit this year of 2.9 per cent of GDP, compared to the average for major advanced economies, the nations we compare ourselves with, of 9.5 per cent. We have our net debt peaking at 6.1 per cent of GDP. The average for major advanced economies will peak at well over 90 per cent of GDP. We will have Australia returning to surplus before any other advanced economy, and we will do so while protecting our AAA rating, all through the downturn and in the upswing as well. We are doing what we said we would do. When the budget went into deficit we said we would implement some fiscal rules to make sure it returned to surplus as soon as possible. We said we would limit real growth in government spending to two per cent and we would bank any improvements in tax revenue to see us go into surplus.
I saw the shadow Treasurer again on Insiders, in a particularly sloppy performance, educating the Australian people and lecturing us about what ‘real’ means. He said, ‘You’ve got to remember, when they say it’s real growth, that is over and above inflation.’ He pointed out that it is possible for government spending in total terms to increase by more than two per cent. We appreciate his insights into that, but he was saying it was easy. He was saying, ‘They don’t have a real test on government spending. It’s not a proper restriction on government spending. It’ll be very easy to meet.’ The analysis shows that in fact the previous government rarely met that test. In eight out of the 10 years before the global financial crisis, government spending grew by more than two per cent in real terms and the average was 3.7 per cent—almost double. Now that they have the luxury of opposition, where they can carp and criticise and whine, they say, ‘Two per cent is easy,’ but it is something they could not achieve in their 12 years in office. And we are doing this while we are setting up the economy to the future.
The MPI today is about the budget’s so-called failure to secure the future of the economy. We are returning the budget to surplus ahead of any other major advanced economy while we are conducting a major reform of the health system, making a massive investment Australia’s health and hospital system and making a very significant investment in skills so that when the economy returns to growth we are not faced with the sorts of skills crises and skills shortages that economies often are faced with as they come out of a downturn. We are doing things like reducing corporate tax, but, perhaps most importantly, we are doing so while setting up Australia, with the ageing of the Australian population, with massive improvements to our superannuation system. We are increasing the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent, effectively repaying the contributions tax of low-income earners and allowing people over 50 to catch up on their superannuation payments if they have a low balance. As our population ages it is so important that we bolster superannuation. We will add half a trillion dollars to the savings pool in superannuation over the next 25 years with these reforms, and the opposition just do not get it. They oppose it. They oppose the increase in the SG and they say there is no link to the resource rent superprofits tax. They say the SG will not cost the government any money. The shadow Treasurer said this in that infamous interview on Sunday and he said it again last night. It appears he has not read the budget papers, because the budget papers make it clear that the increase in the superannuation guarantee will cost the government in revenue forgone over $3 billion a year by the time the superannuation guarantee hits 12 per cent. The shadow Treasurer says it will not cost one dollar—he is right about that: it is not one dollar; it is $3 billion and it is linked to the resource rent superprofits tax. He just does not get basic economics.
They oppose these measures. They oppose our measures to introduce a fairer, more equitable and more efficient tax system in Australia, which all the modelling shows will increase economic activity, both in the mining sector and more generally. The party who are supposedly the party of free enterprise opposes the reduction in the broad corporate tax rate. They oppose the reduction in corporate taxes for small business. They oppose the reduction in corporate taxes for big business and they would whack a big tax on all big and medium sized business in this country. They are supposedly the party of lower tax, but they ran a government which was the highest-taxing government in the history of the Australian Federation. They have the temerity after all that to introduce a matter of public importance in this House which alleges that the budget has not secured the future of the Australian economy.
The Australian economy has been through a difficult time. The world economy has been through a difficult time. And two years ago, if you had predicted that the Australian economy would have performed as well as it has over the past two years, many people would have questioned your prediction—and, indeed, may have questioned your sanity. The Australian government, working together with businesses, employers, unions, other governments, the Reserve Bank and exporters, has seen the Australian economy come through the global financial crisis in the best shape of the world’s advanced major economies. That is an achievement the opposition would deny for cheap political purposes. That is an achievement they stood against when they stood in this chamber against the stimulus, when they voted against the stimulus at four or five in the morning, when they debated through the night to oppose the stimulus because they saw it as such an important matter, and when they saw it as a matter on which they stood as a major distinction between the government and themselves. They stood against jobs. They stood against keeping government finances robust by stimulating the economy to avoid a long and deep recession in Australia. They stood against the creation of 200,000 jobs. They stood against a plan which saw the Australian economy grow when every piece of modelling shows it would have shrunk, when every other major advanced economy of comparative size in the world shrank over that period.
Our actions and the actions of Australians who worked with us saw the economy grow and jobs created. And the opposition still does not get it: the challenge now falls to us, having helped Australia through the global financial crisis, to assist Australia in the recovery, to build on that, to capitalise on that. The opposition stood against those things, and that is their right, but now they stand against Australia building on our achievements of the past two years, on the achievements of all Australians. They simply do not get economics, and perhaps that shows why we have seen today the weakest response to a federal budget that we have seen in living memory. It is a response from a shadow Treasurer and a Leader of the Opposition which has left commentators gasping with disbelief that they could be so poor in their response, that they are reduced to attacking the Treasury modellers, as they did last year and as perhaps they will do in the future. But it just goes to show: the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have lost all claims to economic credibility.
Last night’s budget simply lacks credibility. It is a budget that is closely associated with spin, but has no spine. It is a typical Labor document: all about the spin but completely lacking in substance. The Treasurer said it was going to be boring, partly because he had released all of the details in the previous weeks to make sure there would be nothing interesting on budget night. He did this because he had a secret plan. He hoped that by pretending the budget was boring and had nothing of content in it he could get away with quietly and secretly putting his hand in your pocket to take more money out—to hurt Australians across the country with higher taxes and increased burden, but little value upon which it was spent.
The centrepiece of this budget is clearly three or four major new taxes. The most obvious one is the big new tax on mining to raise billions and billions of dollars. This is not just a tax on big multinational corporations, as the government would try to pretend. It is not even just a tax that will affect the super funds and mum and dad investors. All of those are also being hurt. Indeed, in the very first week we saw something like $15 billion wiped off the value of Australia’s superannuation funds as a direct result of Labor’s big new tax. They claim they are the friends of superannuation. They have their acolytes out there boasting about and welcoming some kind of additional tax on employers so that there can be better superannuation savings. But, at the same time, they are imposing taxes which tear away at the investments of individuals for their retirement and severely damage the superannuation funds.
But this great big new tax affects us also in everything else that we do. Our electricity prices will be higher because coal and gas will be more expensive. Our houses will be more expensive to build because bricks and cement will be more expensive. Our food will be more expensive because the fertiliser and the farm input costs all go up as a result of Labor’s big new tax on mining. So this is like so many other Labor taxes: a tax on ordinary Australians. It is a tax on the household budget. It is not just a tax on Rio Tinto and BHP and other large corporations; it is a tax on pensioners, it is a tax on Australian families and will badly damage their day-to-day budget.
The second tax, which I have already mentioned, is the big new superannuation guarantee levy, which will add substantially to the cost of all Australian employers, including hundreds of thousands of employers who are not going to get any tax cuts. The government has been boasting about the fact that they are offering some small taxation concessions for company tax to small business. But only about 12 per cent of small businesses pay company tax. And yet all of them who have employees are going to have to pay the new superannuation tax.
Of course, the third big Labor tax that is lurking around like a redback in an outback dunny is Labor’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. One minute it is gone, the next minute it is back. We do know there is funding in the budget to keep the bureaucracy rolling over, and everyone knows that in reality, after they have endured all of this taxation splurge, there is still more that Labor has in its mind. No-one can ever escape those taxes; they are going to cost jobs and investment and prosperity all over the country, and that is especially going to be in regional Australia because so many of these industries that are going to cop the big new taxation regime are employing people outside of the capital cities.
But in spite of all these new taxes, we still have a deficit this year in the budget of almost $41 billion—the second-highest deficit since World War II, when our nation was mobilised to fight a rather expensive war on two fronts. Australia had a lot to show for the deficits in the 1940s: we won a war, we secured our peace. But I do not think the people of Australia are going to march on Anzac Days in the future to commemorate the construction in 2009-10 of school halls and dodgy roof insulation. I do not think they are going to be as joyous about the building up of a huge deficit for wasteful government programs as they were when our country was at war.
If you want to look at the centrepieces of the expenditure side of this budget, look no further than the $1 billion for the cost overruns on the school computer program, the extra $1 billion for managing asylum seekers and the $1 billion to undo the insulation scheme. The latter is an extraordinary program—$1.4 billion to put insulation in people’s roofs and now $1 billion to take it out. It reminds me a bit of the old Whitlam RED scheme—dig the hole and then pay somebody else to fill it up. That is what we have in this particular instance—$1.4 billion to put insulation in people’s roofs and $1 billion to take it out. And it is all on the budget deficit; it all adds to the budget deficit, and it will all have to be paid off.
The great honour of the Rudd Labor government, its great legacy for the people of Australia, is that it has delivered the two biggest peacetime budget deficits in our nation’s history. That is the record of the Rudd Labor government. The fiscal conservative, the person who said on television screens before the last election that he was going to balance the budget, that he believed in balanced budgets, has delivered the two biggest budget deficits in our nation’s history. I heard last night that Visa had sponsored Labor’s budget party in Parliament House—probably an appropriate choice of sponsor because another $41 billion has gone on the Australian government’s Visa card. In this instance, the Australian people have to pay it all back.
The Treasurer last night told us that the cards were all going to fall into place and that it was all being done under the highest standards of responsible economic management. Yet he is basing this budget on the predictions that we will have the best terms of trade our country has seen for 60 years, that our exports will grow every year, that there will be substantial investment growth, of something like 20 per cent a year, that unemployment will fall and that inflation will not go above 2½ per cent. This is simply not credible. All that is supposedly going to lead to a $1 billion surplus in three years time. Well, as we heard in question time today, Labor cannot keep budgets within tens of billions of dollars, so anyone who believes there will be a surplus of $1 billion in three year’s time simply has not been watching Labor in government.
One other point that I find very interesting is that the government is predicting that the new excise slug on cigarettes will result in fewer people smoking. That is the excuse for this big new tax. So a 25 per cent increase in the excise on smoking is going to reduce smoking; however, a 40 per cent tax on mining is going to increase, to boost, mining expenditure! That is simply not logical.
The finance minister came in today and said—and he said it once previously—that this budget kills stone-dead the coalition’s debt and deficit argument. He is wrong, by $100 million a day. Every day, with this budget and the budgets that are to follow, Labor will be out in the marketplace borrowing $100 million from the Chinese, from the Middle East, from Europe and from Australians. The government will be competing with business and with homeowners for money to pay for their deficits. As a result, there will also be upward pressure on interest rates. So I assure the finance minister that the coalition’s debt and deficit argument is not stone-dead—it is well and truly alive, and it is alive by $100 million every day. Every day we wait for a change of government we will be $100 million poorer as a nation.
Labor’s previous budgets did not stand the test of time. None of them fulfilled their promises. This time, we are being asked to believe it will be third time lucky. That is simply not going to happen. Labor’s adherence to the Charter of Budget Honesty is in theory only. The Prime Minister’s claim to be an economic conservative is simply empty. This is a big-taxing, big-spending government. They have learnt nothing from the damage they have inflicted on the Australian economy over the last couple of years. The Australian people are going to continue to pay $100 million every day to pay for the debt in the budget that has been brought down and for Labor’s plans for the future. This is not a responsible government. They have lost the right to be the managers of the Australian economy. (Time expired)
I wish to support the view that the government budget of last night helps secure Australia’s economic future, building on our previous actions. Last night’s budget aims, with responsible management, to halve peak debt and to get back in the black in three years—three years early.
Firstly, my case relies upon the fact that the details of the budget are good for ordinary people, with the tax cuts and key investments which have been spelt out. Secondly, many independent commentators have assessed last night’s budget, which has been put before the parliament, very positively. Thirdly, any fair-minded comparison with the rest of the world shows that that our actions are working well. The alternative solutions proposed by the opposition are both inconsistent and not in the national interest.
Every year with a budget is a tough year, and, with the global financial crisis, recent years have been tough and they have been messy. The Rudd government understand that we face an opposition that is hungry to sit where we sit and to have the power that we have, and they will not be too scrupulous about how they achieve that. I also acknowledge that, now that the luxury of watching the Liberal Party’s imbecilic leadership vaudeville show is over, the opposition will grit their teeth and unite behind the Leader of the Opposition because there is too much at stake for them not to. Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, has been in the tent, has been out of the tent, has tried to pull the tent down and is now back in the tent. But I am sure that even he will pull his head in as the election approaches. They will throw every economic smear, every economic scare campaign and every economic label they can at us. I acknowledge they are led by a man with 20 years experience inside the Liberal Party, as a staffer, a minister, a confidante and a hatchet man of the former Prime Minister. He has been known to describe himself as the ideological love child of the member for Mackellar and the former Prime Minister.
Indeed, looking at economic strategies, I understand that in the film Back to the Future Marty McFly and the doc required a souped-up DeLorean sports car to travel back, whereas in this case the Leader of the Opposition simply did it by naming his shadow cabinet. I acknowledge that as part of their economic strategy they have exhumed the political careers of a number of people, probably to their own surprise. We need to remind the public of what this opposition stands for economically. We also need to remind the public that the government is the party of the big picture, the big idea and the big policy.
I believe that this budget passed last night demonstrates that we are not distracted by the 24-hour news cycle or the carping of commentators who would attack this government. Last night we announced major changes to the tax system. We will lower company tax for small business. We will raise retirement incomes for workers by increasing employer superannuation contributions to 12 per cent, and we will look after lower income earners with a $500 rebate. Superannuation was opposed by the conservatives when the last Labor government brought it in, and the rate remained stuck on nine per cent through the Howard years. Now there is progress in superannuation—the best and most sustainable way for Australians to fund their retirements.
We will also be changing the tax system so that Australians get a fair share of the profits from the development of our mineral resources—those resources which are our birthright as the lucky country. The $35 billion in revenue lost in the past decade as mining profits raced ahead of royalties paid will not be lost over the coming years. It will be contributed towards the infrastructure we need for our future, to helping lower tax rates, so ensuring that other parts of our diverse economy can in fact thrive.
I believe last night’s budget did demonstrate that we are the party of economic responsibility in the interests of ordinary Australians in Australia. We have aimed to end government debt by 2012-13. We will have better health with $2.2 billion for hospitals and the significant addition of skills training to make sure that our workforce is equipped to tackle new challenges and that economic recovery does not stall because of the skills shortage. Indeed, we have delivered on the tax cuts we promised and have also made it easier for people to claim a tax deduction with a tick-and-flick approach rather than the lengthy and laborious process that is currently in place. We are determined that people will get the opportunities they deserve. In particular, we are engaged—as I alluded to—in the largest reform of health since Medicare, trying to secure a sustainable future for public hospitals in primary care.
I acknowledge that the project is almost vertigo-inducing in its scope and ambition. It is a project that will affect and support every Australian who uses a hospital. Our skills policy will ensure that we have the right set of skills for people. But it is also easy, when we look at last night’s budget, to forget how far we have come economically in recent years, to forget how much has changed over the past two and a bit years since the Rudd government was elected and to forget what in fact has been achieved.
I believe that, when you look at the steps of our stimulus package and the support of our financial institutions, we have weathered in a far better capacity the economic storms that the rest of the world has experienced. All reasonable comparisons with other major advanced economies throughout the world demonstrate that the Australian economy is in good shape. This has occurred through a combination of factors, but there can be no doubt that the macroeconomic policies of the government in the past year and a half are part of the contribution towards the success of our economic performance compared with the other major developed economies with whom we trade. The fact that our debt as a proportion of GDP is so much smaller at 2.9 per cent than the 9.5 per cent average across our major advanced economic partners demonstrates how well we have been performing. The fact that unemployment, which is such an important issue, is so much lower on average than that of our economic partners demonstrates our ongoing commitment to making sure that fighting unemployment remains not just a priority but the outcome of our economic policies. Keeping people in jobs—supporting people in jobs—through the global financial crisis has in fact been one of the hallmarks of this successful government.
Third-party commentators—people who do not have a particular axe to grind for either the Liberal Party or the Labor Party or the country branch of the Liberal Party, the National Party—have made observations to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. Kyran Curry, from Standard and Poor’s, said:
The projected deficit and additional borrowings over the next three years did not alter the sound profile of Australia’s public finances, which remained the strongest of its peer group.
Robert Jeremenko, from the Taxation Institute of Australia, said last night:
The Taxation Institute welcomes the government’s positive steps towards simplifying tax time for millions of Australians. The government’s moves to introduce an optional $500 tax deduction for work related expenses and also managing tax affairs, phasing up to $1,000, is a great step that will vastly reduce compliance costs for millions of taxpayers.
Pauline Vamos, from the Association of Superannuation Funds, said last night:
By confirming their response to the Henry review, what the government has done is ensure that the majority of Australians will retire on an adequate and comfortable standard of living.
She also said that we have seen equity restored by allowing low-income earners a rebate in their contributions tax. From the Macquarie Group, Brian Redican said last night:
What’s positive is that they—
the government—
are allowing the improvement to flow through to the deficit rather than spending more, which is always a temptation in an election year.
This temptation, I sadly report, was not one which the now opposition could resist in the years that they were in government. To continue his quote:
That, in turn, means there’s less upward pressure on interest rates.
John Brogden, former New South Wales Liberal leader and now CEO of IFSA, said:
The policy announced by the government eight days ago is good for Australia and good for Australians.
This is referring to the superannuation changes. He also said:
It will deliver an extraordinary benefit to the economy, and there is no argument that it can’t be afforded by business.
John Brogden went on to say:
This is visionary policy. It is visionary for Australia’s retirement incomes, and it is visionary for the Australian economy.
He’s right.
And he is right. I understand, as the member for Bennelong says, Mr Brogden is right. He said:
I understand what the critics of the super tax on mining are trying to do. They are trying to link the negative effect on the mining industry with the negative effect on the superannuation industry.
These figures today here indicate pretty clearly that it simply does not hold up. It does not hold up in the short term and it does not hold up in the long term. Through this budget and by supporting the other measures, which we have done in the past two years, Australia is becoming a better and fairer place due to the Rudd’s government’s determination to meet its economic commitments with fairness. It should not be forgotten that we raised pensions for the aged and for people with disability. Unlike previous governments, which have sought to buy the votes of pensioners with one-off handouts, we have put it into their base rate, which allows people to count on it. When I listen to the Liberal Party’s scare campaign on debt, I think that the fact that we are going to pay off our debt quicker than anyone expected demonstrates the solidity and responsibility of an excellent budget last night.
This budget and its outcomes are simply not believable. It is a house of cards. It is a con. The surpluses forecast in this budget are manufactured with new taxes—taxes pulled out of the hat some two to three weeks ago when the government saw that the budget parameters were not going to be met. This government was spooked. This government had knee-jerk policy for crass political purposes. These surpluses are based on minerals growth and new taxes yet the minerals growth will be choked off by the biggest of these taxes, the $9 billion a year tax on mining. No-one can have confidence in the forecast as a consequence of these new taxes—new taxes which were literally conceived in the last two to three weeks, new taxes which received no consultation with business, new taxes which put $9 billion a year on our strongest and most profitable sector in this economy in a world which faces great uncertainty.
I had a call from a friend of mine a few days ago. The friend runs some significant mines in countries in Asia, countries that have some political risk. This friend of mine rang the other day and said he is no longer being asked about political risk in Asia. He said the sovereign risk which has always dogged his attempts to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in these Asian countries is now similarly enjoyed by Australia. Australia is now the laughing stock of sharemarkets around the world because they cannot understand how the government of Australia—so blessed with resources, so blessed with the opportunity to protect itself against further shocks in the world financial markets—would seek to tax those companies that exploit those resources in a way which would make Australian companies uncompetitive. They cannot understand how a government would reduce the competitiveness of our mining companies and impose an effective tax level of 57 per cent, when the nearest tax level of other competing countries is 40 per cent in the United States, 38 per cent in Brazil and lower for every other country.
This means that many of the new projects—the $310 billion worth of projects that are being considered by companies at the present time—will not pass the hurdle rate, will not pass the necessary return on investment, because our mining industries are facing an effective rate of tax of 57 per cent. It is a disgrace. It does indicate the lack of instinct that this government has for the risk associated with business, for the way in which decisions are taken with regard to these major resources. It does show the political crassness of this government and the way in which it goes about constructing important documents like this budget.
There is great uncertainty associated with the forecast side of resources. By putting a great big new tax on, already we are seeing many projects that are no longer being considered or are being put on a shelf so that companies can reconsider where those investments go. Already people are being put off in terms of potential job opportunities. Combine that with the forecast increase in spending—a $26 billion blow-out in spending over the next three years in this budget—and you see the pressure on interest rates going up, and uncertainty associated with the spending programs and with the forecast revenue. This budget confirms this is a government that is losing its way. (Time expired)
I have to admit that when I saw the terms for the MPI moved by the opposition this morning I had to check the date, as I thought it was April Fool’s Day and someone was having a lend of me. Here we have a budget that reflects the policy successes of the past 18 months, reflects that the economy is in recovery and builds on these successes to secure our economic future, and the opposition moves this motion in these terms. They must be kidding themselves.
Look at what has actually happened over the course of the last year. We come to this debate from a period of severe economic difficulty across the globe. Many OECD countries have fallen into recession as a result of the global financial crisis. The GFC has cost many countries a considerable number of jobs and has provided a severe dent for their long-term economic sustainability. Just last year the IMF forecasted that the Australian economy would contract by 1.4 per cent in 2009. But, as a result of the stimulus package put in place by the government in the last budget, the Australian economy actually grew by 1.4 per cent across 2009. That growth has not happened by accident. It has been on the back of the stimulus and on the back of the hard work of local communities and employers keeping people in work. Had we followed the opposition’s advice—which in essence was to do nothing—we would be in recession today and thousands of people would be out of work. We now find ourselves in a position where the Australian economy has performed where other countries have not. Thankfully, because of the Rudd government’s economic management, we are now in a strong position to move forward.
The government understands that, while we may have proven resilient throughout the global financial crisis, we now need to use this opportunity to set our economy up for the future—not throw away opportunities as happened under the Howard government. When we came to government the economy was facing significant capacity constraints, through lack of investment by the previous government in infrastructure, skills and training. The previous government had failed to invest in those areas to drive the productivity and future growth of the economy.
The government used the opportunity of the economic stimulus in last year’s budget to try and turn this around so that, as the economy recovered from the global financial crisis, we would be in a stronger position to grow. This budget seeks to build on that investment. Firstly, there is our commitment to keeping our finances strong. The government took action to protect jobs during the global financial crisis, and we now plan to protect and create jobs into the future by securing our economic position. Our strong financial discipline, as shown in this budget, ensures we get back to surplus in three years—three years earlier than predicted, and ahead of every major advanced economy. While other advanced economies have faced recession, subsequent job losses and longterm deficits, Australia has avoided a recession, created 225,000 jobs and will return the budget to surplus earlier.
It is no secret that our population is ageing and the cost of health is rising. We have recognised the challenges that this poses for our nation, and that is why the Rudd government has focused on health and hospital reform. This budget supports our National Health and Hospitals Network by further delivering $2.2 billion of investment into health over the next four years. We have worked hard to reform and invest in our health system because we know how important this is for the longterm sustainability of the healthcare system.
The 2010-11 budget also addresses the cost-of-living pressures for families. It is Australian families that have worked so hard in the wake of the global financial crisis, and it is Australian families that are now being rewarded for their hard work. The government is supporting families with a new round of personal tax cuts from 1 July 2010. This is the third round of tax cuts in the three years of this government. The budget also addresses our actions towards improving Australia’s economic capacity. I am delighted that this budget invests significantly in skills and infrastructure, with a $661 million investment to help people boost their qualifications by taking part in some 40,000 additional training places and support for 22,500 new apprentices, which builds on the Apprentice Kickstart program. We have also expanded on our nation-building agenda by continuing our commitment to local roads and infrastructure.
With this budget we have acted to create jobs, to fund and reform our health and hospital system, to save and bring us back to surplus early, to invest in infrastructure and build our nation’s capacity, and to boost renewable energy and tackle climate change. This budget is all about taking advantage of our strong economic position and setting our nation up for the future.
I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a change in the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library.
by leave—I move:
That Mrs Mirabella be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
In continuing my remarks I will not take too much time. I was saying just before question time that the government has listened to the concerns of consumers who have asked for the extension of the cut-off period from three to five years, and we will be doing that. At the end of April 40 per cent had reregistered numbers, leaving the majority of people vulnerable to having their numbers dropped off at the end of this month. This bill lengthens the registration period for numbers registered on the do-not-call list, initially from three to five years, including existing registrations. This will prevent numbers from dropping off the register from the end of this month causing untold grief to re-emerge in people’s homes. It will also give certainty back to the industry as well, so it will assist people within the telemarketing community not to have to redo the whole list again. So it is a win-win for all concerned.
The bill will also reinstate any numbers that drop off the register between the end of the month and the time at which the bill commences. As soon as these amendments come into effect, the numbers of those who registered later in 2007 will not need to be re-registered until 2012. That is why we need to get the bill through as quickly as possible today.
The government has been particularly concerned that unwanted and unsolicited calls could potentially affect the operation of emergency service organisations and that unwanted and unsolicited faxes are wasting valuable business resources. Again, we have listened to consumers’ concerns, especially the emergency services. The receipt of telemarketing calls by emergency service organisations is quite troubling, as these calls may potentially impact on emergency service responses. 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. This is an absolute disgrace.
There have also been concerns raised by fax owners. Indeed, many small businesses and individuals in my electorate have contacted me about the bombardment via fax from unwanted marketing. The register does not allow them to opt out of receiving unsolicited commercial faxes at present. Much of the cost of marketing faxes is transferred to the recipient—in fact, all the cost is predominantly transferred to the recipient in lost time, productivity and the tying up of communications equipment as well as additional costs of consumables. Small businesses are waiting for business to come through the fax; they do not want it to be tied up with unsolicited marketing. The bill enables the expansion of the register to enable the registration of emergency service and government telephone numbers and all fax numbers. This is a welcome addition, and one that many in the community have been calling for.
These amendments will benefit any Australian who owns a fax machine or has an interest in the efficient operation of emergency service organisations as well as government agencies. All of us know that in our electorate offices a ridiculous number of these faxes come through. I certainly know, from small businesses and big businesses operating in my electorate, that it is a complete waste of people’s time and money to have these things come through their fax machines and that it will be a welcome relief to have this change to the register.
This change may also assist the telemarketing and fax marketing industries to target their campaigns to those account holders who are likely to respond positively to their representations. Indeed, when the Do Not Call Register was first put in place the telemarketing industry said that they would fall over—they would collapse—and that there would be a huge downturn. That has not been the case, as was also demonstrated when the UK and the US introduced their systems. The telemarketing industry has been able to adapt and change and we have not seen a corresponding drop-off of employment in these areas.
I move to the other changes that we are not making in respect of the bill before us today. There has been a great deal of discussion by businesses seeking to have their numbers also put on the register. When you think of businesses you need to think of micro businesses. We could be talking about an individual businessperson operating out of their home. They would have two phones: one is their business phone registered with their ABN and one is their personal phone. A lot of these people would like to have their small businesses—their additional home phone—put on the register. I do not think it as black and white as the opposition has been making out.
A departmental discussion paper was released in August 2008 seeking community views on whether all telephone and fax numbers should be eligible for inclusion on the register, including businesses. Submissions to the discussion paper found that 86 per cent of respondents supported the inclusion of all telephone and fax numbers. I welcome the minister’s statement that his department will do some further research and consultation to see if there is a case for allowing business numbers on the register.
I believe that expanding the register to include small businesses would offer them the same level of protection afforded to consumers, and help prevent productivity losses currently experienced as a result of invasive phone calls. It would also help protect those households that operate micro and small businesses, from those nuisance calls that they are getting. I certainly know one business operator in my electorate who says: ‘My small business is out the back in the garage. I’m trying to get the tea ready, I hear the phone ringing and I think it might be a business opportunity. I race out but it’s a telemarketing call.’
It is not so black and white. I do not think the argument put forward, that somehow this will lose all opportunities for business-to-business relationships, is the case. I think there are ways of doing it. I understand there is an urgent need to get this legislation through and I welcome the opposition’s support of expanding the time period for the list. I support the bill before the House. I think it is a welcome addition for consumers who won the right to get this legislation in the first place.
Again, I want to say thank you to the many radio talk-back announcers who made this bill a reality back in 2007, when the Howard government and the then minister for communication said that it could not work. The consumers spoke loud and clear, the radio spoke loud and clear, and a good piece of legislation was put in place. This will be an improvement. I commend the bill to the House.
The government welcomes the debate on the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and thanks the members who spoke in support of this bill, including those from the opposition. I am sure members would not mind my singling out the member for Chisholm for the important role that she has played over a long period of time as an advocate for this legislation.
The Do not Call Register Act 2006 was introduced in May 2007 to enable individuals to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls by listing their fixed or mobile telephone numbers, used primarily for private or domestic purposes, on the Do Not Call Register. This bill, with our amendments introduced today, amends the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 to enable the registration of emergency service and government telephone numbers and all fax numbers, and extends the current registration period.
The bill introduces regulation of unsolicited fax marketing by prohibiting the sending of a marketing fax to a number on the register. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority to make codes and standards for the fax marketing industry. The ACMA will be required to make an industry standard dealing with fax marketing.
When the bill was introduced to parliament on 26 November 2009 it sought to extend the register to all telephone and fax numbers. Following introduction, the bill was referred for consideration by a Senate committee, where concerns were expressed by opposition members and business organisations about the extension of the register to business numbers, in particular in relation to the impact on business-to-business communications and costs of compliance. Further, a recent review of the Do Not Call Register scheme undertaken by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy identified that individual respondents strongly endorsed a longer registration period than the current three years.
As a consequence, and to facilitate the quick and timely passage of this bill, the government introduced amendments which removed the extension of the register to business numbers and addressed concerns raised about the three-year registration period. The opposition did not support an extension of the register to business telephone numbers. We have agreed to remove businesses from the revised bill and to undertake further research and consultation with regard to the merit of their being eligible to register. The government maintains an open mind on the issue of business numbers and intends to do further research in consultation with stakeholders, including those in the business community, including the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia.
The bill will enable the minister to specify by legislative instrument the period of registration. And the instrument will apply retrospectively to existing numbers and numbers whose registration lapsed following the three-year registration period. The amended bill now allows for the registration of emergency service and government telephone numbers and/or fax numbers.
I thank those who worked cooperatively with the government on the bill, including the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, and I thank the opposition for voting with the government to ensure the timely passage of this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (30) together.
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 28), after item 9, insert:
9A Section 4
Insert:
emergency service number has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications Act 1997.
(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (lines 12 to 14), omit the item.
(3) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (lines 18 to 20), omit the item.
(4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (lines 24 to 27), omit the item.
(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (lines 12 to 19), omit section 5C.
(6) Schedule 1, item 24, page 8 (line 26) to page 9 (line 6), omit subparagraphs 11(3)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), substitute:
(i) the person received information under paragraph 19(2)(d) in response to the submission of the list, but that information did not state that the number was registered on the Do Not Call Register; or
(ii) the person was informed under paragraph 19(2)(e), in response to the submission of the list, that the number was not registered on the Do Not Call Register; or
(iii) under paragraph 19(2)(f), in response to the submission of the list, the person was given a list that included the number.
(7) Schedule 1, items 26 and 27, page 9 (lines 9 to 30), omit the items.
(8) Schedule 1, item 28, page 9 (lines 31 to 33), omit the item, substitute:
28 Paragraph 12(1)(b)
Omit “telephone numbers”, substitute “Australian numbers”.
(9) Schedule 1, item 29, page 10 (line 28) to page 11 (line 12), omit subparagraphs 12B(3)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), substitute:
(i) the person received information under paragraph 19(2)(d) in response to the submission of the list, but that information did not state that the number was registered on the Do Not Call Register; or
(ii) the person was informed under paragraph 19(2)(e), in response to the submission of the list, that the number was not registered on the Do Not Call Register; or
(iii) under paragraph 19(2)(f), in response to the submission of the list, the person was given a list that included the number.
(10) Schedule 1, item 29, page 11 (lines 16 to 33), omit subsection 12B(4).
(11) Schedule 1, item 29, page 12 (line 1), omit “, (4)”.
(12) Schedule 1, item 29, page 13 (line 11), after “Australian numbers”, insert “that, under section 14, are eligible to be entered on the Do Not Call Register”.
(13) Schedule 1, item 31, page 14 (lines 6 and 7), omit the item.
(14) Schedule 1, item 33, page 14 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item, substitute:
33 Section 14
Repeal the section, substitute:
14 Eligibility for registration
An Australian number is eligible to be entered on the Do Not Call Register if:
(a) it is used or maintained primarily for private or domestic purposes; or
(b) it is used or maintained exclusively for transmitting and/or receiving faxes; or
(c) it is used or maintained exclusively for use by a government body; or
(d) it is an emergency service number.
(15) Schedule 1, item 34, page 14 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item.
(16) Schedule 1, items 37 and 38, page 14 (line 24) to page 15 (line 25), omit the items.
(17) Schedule 1, item 39, page 15 (line 26) to page 16 (line 25), omit the item, substitute:
39 Paragraph 16(a)
Omit “a telephone number”, substitute “an Australian number”.
(18) Schedule 1, item 41, page 16 (lines 28 and 29), omit the item.
(19) Schedule 1, item 42, page 16 (line 30) to page 17 (line 2), omit the item, substitute:
42 Paragraph 17(1)(b)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) remains in force for:
(i) 3 years; or
(ii) if a longer period is specified in an instrument in force under subsection (1A)—that longer period;
unless sooner removed from the Do Not Call Register in accordance with a determination under subsection 18(1).
42A After subsection 17(1)
Insert:
(1A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify a period for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii).
(20) Schedule 1, items 44 and 45, page 17 (lines 5 to 8), omit the items.
(21) Schedule 1, items 47 and 48, page 17 (lines 11 to 14), omit the items.
(22) Schedule 1, item 52, page 17 (line 23) to page 18 (line 15), omit paragraphs 19(2)(d), (e), (f) and (g), substitute:
(d) if the access-seeker requests the ACMA or the contracted service provider, as the case may be, to do so—inform the access-seeker which numbers (if any) on the access-seeker’s list are registered on the Do Not Call Register; and
(e) if the access-seeker requests the ACMA or the contracted service provider, as the case may be, to do so—inform the access-seeker which numbers (if any) on the access-seeker’s list are not registered on the Do Not Call Register; and
(f) if the access-seeker requests the ACMA or the contracted service provider, as the case may be, to do so—return the access-seeker’s list, modified by the deletion of the numbers (if any) registered on the Do Not Call Register.
(23) Schedule 1, item 54, page 18 (line 19), omit “19(2)(d), (e) or (f)”, substitute “19(2)(d) or (e)”.
(24) Schedule 1, item 55, page 18 (line 21), omit “19(2)(g)”, substitute “19(2)(f)”.
(25) Schedule 1, items 74 and 75, page 26 (lines 20 to 26), omit the items.
(26) Schedule 1, item 76, page 26 (line 27) to page 27 (line 4), omit the item.
(27) Schedule 1, item 84, page 27 (line 23) to page 28 (line 23), omit clause 6.
(28) Schedule 1, item 91, page 30 (line 30), omit “20(1)(c)”, substitute “20(1)(b)”.
(29) Schedule 1, item 91, page 30 (line 32), omit “20(1)(d)”, substitute “20(1)(c)”.
(30) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 18), at the end of Part 1, add:
Division 3—Transitional
94A Transitional—reinstatement of registration of numbers
The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that, if:
(a) the registration of an Australian number on the Do Not Call Register ceased to be in force before the commencement of the instrument; and
(b) the cessation was:
(i) as a result of paragraph 17(1)(b) of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 as in force before the commencement of this item; and
(ii) not because of the removal of the number from the Do Not Call Register in accordance with a determination under subsection 18(1) of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006; and
(c) the number was not registered on the Do Not Call Register immediately before the commencement of this item; and
(d) no application for the number to be entered on the Do Not Call Register was pending immediately before the commencement of this item;
then:
(e) the number must be entered on the Do Not Call Register by:
(i) if the Do Not Call Register is kept by the ACMA—the ACMA; or
(ii) if the Do Not Call Register is kept by the contracted service provider—the contracted service provider on behalf of the ACMA; and
(f) despite subsection 17(1) of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 as amended by this Part, the registration of the number on the Do Not Call Register:
(i) takes effect when it is entered on the Do Not Call Register; and
(ii) remains in force for the period specified in the instrument, unless sooner removed from the Do Not Call Register in accordance with a determination under subsection 18(1) of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 as amended by this Part.
The government has decided to amend the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 to replace the existing three-year registration period with a ministerial determination, which will provide for a five-year registration period initially and remove the previously proposed extension of the register to business numbers. The government amendments I am moving here in the chamber will, firstly, enable the minister to specify by legislative instrument the period of registration. The instrument will apply to existing registered numbers and to any numbers whose registration lapses due to the current three-year registration period. Initially, the minister will specify a registration period of five years instead of the current three-year period.
Secondly, the amendments will remove the previously proposed extension of the register to include business telephone numbers but retain the eligibility of emergency numbers, government numbers and all fax numbers. This has arisen following extensive consultation by the department since the bill was introduced and referred for consideration to the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee. The government intends to undertake further detailed research and consultation with stakeholders on this issue. Finally, as a consequence of removing eligibility of business telephone numbers, we will remove the notion of registered consent that would have enable registrants to nominate industry classifications on which they would agree to receive telemarketing calls and faxes.
The passage of these amendments, together with the passage of the bill as amended, will ensure that this bill is able to receive the timely support of all in this chamber. I think it is an example of the Senate processes being taken seriously. It is an example of the parliament working cooperatively in the national interest. Whilst there have been some disagreements, it has been agreed that it is important this legislation be moved forward, which is why I commend these amendments to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 3, item 4, page 13 (line 23) to page 16 (line 17), omit sections 275-5 and 275-10.
(2) Schedule 3, item 4, page 16 (lines 24 to 26), omit paragraph 275-15(1)(b), substitute:
(b) every *member of the trust is a managed investment trust in relation to the income year (or a trust that is treated in the same way as a managed investment trust in relation to the income year through the operation of this Subdivision).
(3) Schedule 3, item 4, page 17 (lines 6 to 13), omit paragraphs 275-20(b) and (c), substitute:
(b) the trust would be a managed investment trust in relation to the income year (or a trust that would be treated in the same way as a managed investment trust in relation to the income year through the operation of this Subdivision) if the trustee of the trust had made the first fund payment in relation to the income year on the first day of the income year; and
(c) the trust would be a managed investment trust in relation to the income year (or a trust that would be treated in the same way as a managed investment trust in relation to the income year through the operation of this Subdivision) if the trustee of the trust had made the first fund payment in relation to the income year on the last day of the income year.
(4) Schedule 3, item 4, page 17 (lines 14 to 26), omit section 275-25.
(5) Schedule 3, item 4, page 21 (lines 32 and 33), omit “year of income”, substitute “income year”.
(6) Schedule 3, item 4, page 22 (line 1), after “Division 6C”, insert “of Part III”.
(7) Schedule 3, item 4, page 22 (line 2), omit “year of income”, substitute “income year”.
(8) Schedule 5, page 37 (after line 11), after item 3, insert:
3A Subsection 701-58(2)
After “(5A)”, insert “, (5C)”.
3B At the end of Division 701
Add:
701-90 Valuable right to future income treated as separate asset
(1) This subsection covers a valuable right (including a contingent right) to receive an amount for the performance of work or services or the provision of goods (other than *trading stock) if:
(a) the valuable right forms part of a contract or agreement; and
(b) the *market value of the valuable right (taking into account all the obligations and conditions relating to the right) is greater than nil.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, treat a valuable right covered by subsection (1) as a separate asset.
(3) For the purposes of this Part, if:
(a) a valuable right is treated as a separate asset under subsection (2); and
(b) the contract or agreement mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) also includes one or more other rights;
for the purposes of this Part, treat the contract or agreement (excluding the valuable right) as a separate asset.
(4) For the purposes of this Part:
(a) take into account all the obligations and conditions relating to a valuable right treated as a separate asset under subsection (2) in working out the *market value of that separate asset; and
(b) if a contract or agreement (excluding the valuable right) is treated as a separate asset under subsection (3)—take into account all the obligations and conditions relating to each right (other than the valuable right) that forms part of the contract or agreement in working out the market value of that separate asset.
(9) Schedule 5, item 4, page 39 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph 716-405(2)(a), substitute:
(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the amount determined under subsection (3A); or
(10) Schedule 5, item 4, page 39 (after line 22), after subsection 716-405(3), insert:
(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), the amount is the lesser of the following:
(a) the *unexpended tax cost setting amount for the asset for that income year;
(b) the unexpended tax cost setting amount for the asset for the first income year ending after the joining time, divided by the lesser of:
(i) 10; or
(ii) if the contract or agreement giving rise to the valuable right mentioned in paragraph 716-410(a) is for a specified period—the number of days in that period that end after the joining time, divided by 365 and rounded upwards to the nearest whole number.
(11) Schedule 5, item 4, page 40 (lines 23 and 24), omit paragraph 716-410(a), substitute:
(a) the asset is a valuable right covered by subsection 701-90(1); and
Note: Such a valuable right is treated as a separate asset for the purposes of this Part (see subsection 701-90(2)).
(12) Schedule 5, item 4, page 40 (lines 28 to 30), omit paragraph 716-410(c), substitute:
(c) it is reasonable to expect that an amount attributable to the asset will be included in the assessable income of the entity or any other entity after the joining time; and
(d) Division 230 does not apply in relation to the asset (disregarding section 230-455).
(13) Schedule 5, item 8, page 43 (lines 12 to 14), omit paragraph (4)(a), substitute:
(a) on or before 30 June 2011; or
(14) Schedule 5, item 84, page 66 (lines 2 and 3), omit “leaving entity” (wherever occurring), substitute “partnership”.
(15) Schedule 5, page 86 (after line 18), after item 146, insert:
146A Section 715-230 (note 1)
Omit “a direct or indirect interest in a subsidiary member”, substitute “certain kinds of interests in a member”.
(16) Schedule 5, page 86 (after line 28), after item 148, insert:
148A After section 715-260
Insert:
715-265 Head company does not have relevant equity or debt interest in a loss company if widely held top company does not have such an interest
(1) For the purposes of Subdivision 165-CD, treat the *head company of a *consolidated group as not having a relevant equity interest in a *loss company at a particular time if:
(a) the head company is an *eligible tier-1 company of a *top company at that time; and
(b) the top company is a *widely held company at that time; and
(c) because of subsections 165-115X(2A), (2B) and (2C), the top company does not have a relevant equity interest under section 165-115X in the loss company at that time.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), disregard the operation of subsection 701-1(1) (the single entity rule) in determining whether subsection 165-115X(2C) has the effect that the *top company has the relevant equity interest mentioned in that paragraph.
(3) For the purposes of Subdivision 165-CD, treat the *head company of a *consolidated group as not having a relevant debt interest in a *loss company at a particular time if:
(a) the head company is an *eligible tier-1 company of a *top company at that time; and
(b) the top company is a *widely held company at that time; and
(c) because of subsections 165-115Y(3A), (3B) and (3C), the top company does not have a relevant debt interest under section 165-115Y in the loss company at that time.
(17) Schedule 5, page 87 (after line 11), after item 150, insert:
150A Section 715-450 (note)
Omit “a direct or indirect interest in a subsidiary member”, substitute “certain kinds of interests in a member”.
150B Subdivision 715-H (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Subdivision 715-H—Cancelling loss on realisation event for direct or indirect interest in a member of a consolidated group
150C Paragraph 715-610(2)(d)
Omit “a consolidated group.”, substitute “a consolidated group; or”.
150D At the end of subsection 715-610(2)
Add:
(e) all of these conditions are satisfied at that time:
(i) the realised interest was an equity or loan interest, an *indirect equity or loan interest or an external indirect equity or loan interest, in the *head company of a consolidated group;
(ii) the owner was not a member of the group;
(iii) the head company was an *eligible tier-1 company of a *top company.
150E Subsection 715-610(3)
Omit “a *subsidiary member”, substitute “a member”.
150F Subsection 715-610(3)
Omit “the subsidiary member” (wherever occurring), substitute “the member”.
(18) Schedule 5, item 193, page 102 (lines 20 and 21), omit the item, substitute:
193 Application provision
(1) The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to a consolidated group or MEC group on or after:
(a) if the head company of the consolidated group (or the head company or provisional head company of the MEC group) makes a choice in accordance with subitems (2) and (3)—10 February 2010; or
(b) otherwise—1 July 2002.
(2) A choice mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) must be made:
(a) on or before 30 June 2014; or
(b) within a further time allowed by the Commissioner.
(3) A choice mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) must be made in writing.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Amendments (1) to (7) amend schedule 3 of the bill. Broadly, schedule 3 amends the tax law to allow eligible Australian managed investment trusts to make an irrevocable choice to apply the capital gains tax provisions as the primary code for the taxation of gains and losses on disposal of certain assets, primarily shares, units and rural property. Following the introduction of the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 into parliament, the government announced changes to the general withholding tax definition of managed investment trusts to align it more closely with the capital account definition in this bill. The government will not, however, proceed with certain provisions in schedule 3 that would have expanded the meaning of managed investment trusts for capital account purposes. The government is undertaking further consultation with key stakeholders to ensure that the aligned definition is better targeted to achieve its policy objectives in relation to both the withholding tax and the capital account measures. The proposed changes to align the definitions of managed investment trusts more closely will be introduced into parliament at a later date.
Amendments (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) make some minor technical corrections to schedule (3) and amendments (8) to (18) amend various parts of schedule 5 to the bill. That schedule amends the consolidation regime. These amendments address several issues that have arisen since the bill was introduced into parliament. Amendments (8) to (12) modify part 1 of schedule 5 to clarify the treatment of the tax costs, setting the amount allocated to assets that are rights to future income. Amendments (15) to (17) modify part 16 of schedule 5, which makes it easier for widely held companies to satisfy the loss multiplication rules so that the amendments apply appropriately to foreign owned consolidated groups. Amendment (18) modifies part 18 of schedule 5, which relates to consolidation choices to overcome concerns that the amendments could have an adverse retrospective impact on taxpayers in some very limited circumstances. Finally, amendments (13) and (14) make some technical corrections to the bill.
Question agreed to.
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.
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 10 February, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010 is a very straightforward bill. It provides for greater patient choice of pathology services. An individual’s choice of pathology practitioner is currently restricted by the Health Insurance Act 1973. This act requires that in order for a Medicare benefit to be paid for the pathology services rendered, a referral to a named provider is required. This means that a patient must take the request for service to the pathology provider specified by their doctor. This amendment enables a general referral to a pathology provider to be made, allowing patients to have a choice as to who they see. Whilst under the legislation a patient will still be required to have a referral for pathology services, this will be a generic referral and will not restrict the service provider they can visit, as is currently the case. This legislation should foster a system where there is some competition and also, most importantly, choice for patients. It gives patients choice regarding price, location and reputation of the provider.
This amendment brings the treatment for pathology services into line with those for other diagnostic services, where there is no requirement to name a provider in order to receive diagnostic imaging services. Specifically, these amendments ensure that, providing a patient has a current referral to a pathology service or pathologist, they would be entitled to take that referral to the provider of their choice for their service. There is a provision for pathology providers to provide branded request forms, as is currently the case. There is a requirement in this legislation that the patients be aware that they can take the referral to any pathology provider of their choice. There is no prohibition on the referring doctor suggesting a pathologist to their patient. This legislation anticipates that that discussion should occur between patients and their doctors. However, the patient does have a choice as to whether they accept the recommendation of their doctor or whether, for their own reasons, they choose to use the services of another pathology provider.
These proposed amendments have the effect of removing the existing requirement that a pathology request be made to a particular approved pathology practitioner or authority whilst retaining the requirement that a written request for pathology services be made by the treating practitioner. It should allow for more choice than is presently the case, and it should allow for patients to determine to take their business to the pathology provider of their choice, which they might use on the basis of service, on the basis of price or on the basis of locations. The opposition will not be opposing this legislation; it seems a sensible step in providing for more patient choice.
At the risk of quoting someone who is not often quoted on this side of the House, I note patients should have freedom to choose, as Milton Friedman said. The truth is patients should be able to choose their GP and they should be able to choose their pathology provider without any cosy arrangements. There was some comment made in relation to the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010 by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia claiming that it is a professional right of doctors to determine to whom they refer their patients and that that would affect the quality of care. I think that is simply nonsense.
What we are doing here is ensuring better competition and improving the quality of service. It gives patients the opportunity to choose. Doctors will still be able to discuss this issue, as I am sure they do with patients concerning their care. It brings it all into line with other diagnostic imaging requests. It is simply quite amazing that these sorts of cosy arrangements have continued for a long time. Patients will inevitably, on the basis of geographic convenience, price and any number of other reasons, choose the pathologist of their choice. It does not stop doctors discussing this issue with their patients. I am sure that they can do it. Pathology providers will continue to be able to produce branded request forms that include the company logo and address. It simply means that patients have the opportunity as consumers to work out which provider of pathology services they want. In order to do this we have to amend the Health Insurance Act.
This 1973 act, so it goes back a long way, says that there needs to be a particular pathology provider if there is a request in relation to a Medicare-eligible pathology service. This legislation before the House removes that restriction. It means that the doctor will give the patient the opportunity to choose the pathology provider which they want. These legislative amendments take place from the middle of this year. They are well-crafted and necessary amendments, improving the quality of health care. They will improve information. It will mean that doctors will have to discuss this issue with their patients and that there will be competition on price accordingly. There will be a greater opportunity for patients to choose. I think, as many on both sides of this House think, that it is the right of Australians to choose the doctor that they want and that we will see an improvement in pathology services. I have seen correspondence in relation to this from pathologists and from the association which governs them. The correspondence they have undertaken in relation to this matter is quite hysterical. For the life of me I cannot understand why they are not in favour of increased competition and improved patient choice. The legislation that we have provided will make it fairer for patients.
The peak representative bodies have, as I have said, expressed concerns. I think that is rubbish. Doctors are still able to discuss the issue with their patients. Medicare benefits will be payable for pathology services. It will allow the patient to take a pathology request to an approved pathology practitioner of their choice. There will be a transition period of 12 months in respect of the changes to the regulations to minimise any difficulties in terms of the regulatory impact on practices. It will make a difference by having the Department of Health and Ageing undertake a communication strategy to inform the public, as well as doctors and pathologists, about this change. We allocated about $140,000 in the previous budget to undertake this. That includes the funding for the communication strategy. This will benefit patient choice in the community. I think it will improve pathology services and improve the health system. In all the circumstances I commend this legislation to the House.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. In the absence of the honourable member for Bowman, who is due to speak next, I am wondering whether the honourable member for Indi might like to make a short contribution while arrangements are made to have the next scheduled speaker arrive.
I am happy to assist the House by rising to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010. This bill is about choice. It is about giving patients choice and we on this side of the House have extended that principle of patient freedom and patient choice. We have been consistent. We have spread that to choice for private health insurance, for example. My electorate is a rural electorate. It is not an electorate with a particularly high income. In it we have over 40 per cent of people covered by private health insurance, because they choose to have it, and in the area of health, where if you do not have technical knowledge you rely on the experts, it is even more important to give patients peace of mind that the choices they make are the best possible choices in terms of selecting those who can look after them, those who can conduct certain tests and those who can guide them through some medical issue or problem.
This particular bill amends the Health Insurance Act. It removes the need for a Medicare-eligible pathology service to be made by a specific pathology provider, thereby allowing a patient to exercise their choice to take their request to a pathology provider of their own choosing. So that does add some additional choice. For once it is good to see the Labor Party in this way, perhaps a small way compared to what they are trying to do to private health insurance, supporting patient choice. I thank the House for the opportunity to be able to contribute to this very important debate.
I thank the honourable member for Indi.
I rise to speak in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010. It will provide a choice for Australians who have been referred for a pathology service by their medical practitioner and thus encourage greater competition in the industry.
Pathology testing services are crucial to the ongoing health and wellbeing of all Australians. Pathology tests screen for numerous disorders such as infections, diseases and cancers. They also test body functions. Pathology tests include bowel cancer screening programs, pre-diabetes and cholesterol tests, women’s health programs such as breast screening, biopsies and pap smears, and also men’s health programs. They cover just about every area you can think of.
The contribution of this industry to the nation’s health cannot be overstated. In 2009 the industry delivered $2.1 billion in pathology services for Australians. Over 80 per cent of these services were bulk-billed through Medicare at a cost of $1.8 billion. At 80 per cent of all services provided, this is the highest bulk-billing rate for any medical procedure. Bulk-billing of pathology services is important to ensure that Australians who have been prescribed pathology tests by their medical practitioner go ahead and have their tests taken. Any reduction in the bulk-billing rate of pathology may lead to the situation where patients miss out on important diagnoses due to their wanting to avoid out-of-pocket expenses.
The effect of reducing bulk-billing on the community may be profound if patients choose to forgo tests in the area of pathology. As an example of the importance of pathology services, currently over six per cent of pathology tests are for the presence of type 2 diabetes. Many people who undertake these tests might have spent years not knowing that they were in that situation. So it is vital that they go to a pathology provider as soon as they have been told to do so by their medical practitioner. To reduce the damage of type 2 diabetes to our population, more Australians who are at risk need to take the test in order to find out whether or not they have it. As I said, if there is any impediment to a person undertaking a test once they have been prescribed a check-up, the damage from that delay is long term. Obviously, it accumulates.
Last year, a number of pathology providers wrote to local doctors asking them to identify healthcare cardholders so that they could charge all other patients for services that were currently being bulk-billed. This is a concerning development as it is the belief of the government that pathology services are profitable and that the current practice of bulk-billing should continue, with 80 per cent of pathology services being bulk-billed to Medicare. This bill will give patients the power to choose another pathology service if the recommended service does not bulk-bill, if the service is too far away or if they prefer to attend another practice. This amendment will put pressure on service providers to continue the practice of bulk-billing pathology tests.
The primary effect of this bill is to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove the current restriction on Medicare funding for pathology tests. Under the Heath Insurance Act 1973 a patient must attend the pathology service specified on the referral from the medical practitioner. The bill will enable patients to have the option of using a pathology service other than that recommended by their medical practitioner. The bill will remove the anomaly that exists between pathology and diagnostic imaging services whereby, under the current act, patients are able to use a diagnostic imaging provider of their choice whilst being given no choice of a pathology service provider. Patient choice is a key element of quality health care, and this bill will open up choice to patients in the area of pathology.
For organisations providing pathology services, this bill will provide them with an opportunity to attract more patients to use their services. The pathology industry estimates that there are 36,000 people directly employed in providing pathology services within Australia. As I mentioned previously, the industry has a national turnover of $2.1 billion. Pathology services generally involve local clinics in the suburbs and towns of Australia, including a number in the electorate of Deakin, as well as transportation and the major laboratories which conduct the tests. The industry covers a very wide-ranging workforce. An example of a pathology lab is Pathlab, which sits just outside the electorate of Deakin, in the suburb of Burwood. Pathlab is an independent lab that was established in 1994. It employs pathologists, graduate scientists, technicians, trained pathology collectors, couriers, clerks and ancillary personnel. In total, over 80 people are employed at Pathlab. For those working in the industry, it is a highly skilled and specialised industry that provides many opportunities. The industry also has many close links with higher education institutions.
The government supports this industry, and I believe that this reform will provide an opportunity for providers of pathology services to differentiate themselves and grow their business. Under this reform, pathology providers will be able to continue producing ‘branded’ request forms and providing them to medical practitioners. The forms may include a list of the locations of that provider’s collection centres and their logos. However, from 1 July 2011 there will be a requirement that the request forms have a clear and understandable and obviously positioned statement, making patients aware that these forms can be taken to any approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority. Patients will then be able to make their own choice as to which provider offers them the best service at the best location. Also, for most patients, a key determinant will be whether or not the service provider bulk-bills. Pathology providers can continue their relationships with medical practitioners and, at the same time, build their reputation in the community to grow their business.
This bill will ensure that patients have a right to choose their pathology provider and that they are made aware of that fact. I am sure it will lead to increased competition and better service among providers. This bill will remove anomalies whereby patients can chose providers of medical services other than those offering pathology services. Pathology services make up a substantial part of our health system. Approximately 34 per cent of Medicare activity relates to pathology. In 2007-08 there were 29 million pathology services claimed under Medicare. This bill will provide an opportunity for the industry to compete for patients who have been referred for pathology testing, and it will give patients the power to choose.
The Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010 is just one part of the Rudd government’s decisive action in delivering a better health system for all Australians. Providing choice of pathology service will give patients the freedom to decide which service they use, and it will give those in the industry an opportunity to differentiate their services from that of others. I commend the bill to the House.
This debate would be incomplete were we not to talk about the other part of the Rudd government’s record in pathology services. No-one in this country—no pensioner, no child and no patient sitting in any GP practice—will forget the Rudd government’s decision to slice, to excise and to remove the ability of a pathologist to charge for more than five services in a single request. This has had enormous financial implications for pathologists and it has had enormous implications for seniors who in particular face multiple testing through pathology. This relatively minor bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010,is merely an opportunity to remember the three years of this government’s destructive interference in pathology.
No-one could disagree with the idea that a patient should be able to see any pathologist that they wish, but let’s have a small dose of GP-centered reality, which is that most GPs sit there with a bundle of referral pads from which patients can choose for themselves which provider they wish to attend. Let’s be completely honest that the overwhelming majority of patients walk straight outside the GPs surgery and around the corner into a pathology laboratory and have the tests done. And let’s make one other obvious economic observation, and that is that pathology services are pretty interchangeable. They all have sharp needles, haven’t they? They all sting when they go in. It is not as though you are trying to buy a car or a house. This is so often about a blood test or other kind of test, and when it comes to getting that test the services are often completely indistinguishable to patients that attend them. The services are almost identical except for how comfy the chair is that you sit in when you have the test done. So let’s remember the size and scope of this very unambitious and underwhelming bill that is dressed up in the guise of increasing competition.
The previous speaker, the member for Deakin, talked about $2 billion that is spent every year processing 30 million tests. That is a mind-boggling figure in the Australian health system. It represents 34 to 35 per cent of all MBS spending. But do not forget that in pathologists we are dealing with the foot soldiers of the health system, who are often unrecognised and go to extraordinary lengths to deliver services in every corner of this country. If you were to ask me what aspect of pathology services for this country is in most urgent need of reform, I do not think I would be wasting legislative time on only one minor reform enabling a patient to go to any provider they wished. I will give you one priority that is far, far bigger than that: a concessional patient who needs five, six, seven or 10 pathology tests and has a federal government which refuses to rebate the cost of those tests to the pathologist and instead puts the pathologist in the abhorrent position of having to decide whether or not to bulk-bill for the increasing number of tests and increasing expenditure needed to give the care to the patient that Australians expect. That is what the Rudd government did surreptitiously. It introduced an untrustworthy process that did not hide or obfuscate but took away the ability of a patient to be a bulk-billed for a test. In doing that, you simply disadvantage the patients who need more tests done.
I recognise in this chamber the private pathologists, because they stood up to the Rudd government. In the last three years, they started one of the most compelling postcard campaigns that we have seen, saying to this Rudd government, ‘What is the difference between the first and the fifth and the sixth and the seventh pathology test?’ There is no difference. They are ordered by a doctor for good reason. Our Prime Minister decided, ‘No, some tests are more equal than others’, but if you remove the ability to bulk-bill those and even remove the capacity of our health system to fund those tests you leave the patient and the pathologist in that awkward position. In the discussion between a doctor and a patient in every corner of this country, the patient would not say, ‘I want to go to a different pathologist’ but, ‘Why can’t I have those tests bulk-billed? Why must I pay an out-of-pocket cost?’ These changes were implemented by the Rudd government in the hegemony they enjoyed when Mr Rudd had a 70 per cent approval rating. This government thought they could get away with it, but is not forgotten today and it is not forgotten in this legislative debate.
Who are we talking about here? We are talking about nursing-home patients, children who might be 13 or 14 and do not qualify as children under the bulk-billing rules for a pathology practice, and patients who have a pension card or a seniors card and who are worried about no longer being eligible for bulk-billing. What is set up is that invidious situation where patients start choosing for themselves not to have a pathology test because of the cost. They make their own decisions not to get the care they need, because they simply cannot afford it. There is a simple principle at play here, and that is that it is obviously the GPs decision how they charge. Some bulk-bill, some do not and some have mixed practices. But in talking about pathologists, I cannot see the justification for Mr Rudd saying, ‘We will not provide an option for those services to be refunded,’ and that is what this government did.
I spoke earlier of pathologists being the foot soldiers of our health system. They are rarely recognised and rarely congratulated, but they often work in large practices to bring costs down and operate efficient services in pathology. So I think it is really important for us to have a look at pathology’s dedication to bulk-billing. Back in 1996, bulk-billing was used for 80 per cent of all services, and in 2010 it still sits at around 80 per cent. That is in stark contrast to other diagnostic imaging, where bulk-billing is at just over 60 per cent; to Medicare, where it sits at around 75 per cent; to general practice at just under 80 per cent; to specialists at 30 per cent; to obstetrics, where it has climbed from 20 to 39 per cent; and to anaesthetics, at around 10 per cent. Pathologists have stuck by Medicare more than any government ever has. They were loyal and they were absolutely determined to make pathology as cost-free as possible to patients, and this is how they were thanked on the other side of the chamber. It was a disgraceful decision at a time when this Prime Minster cared little for the views of people who attended pathologists for their essential care.
I also want to read in exactly what has happened to pathologists while many other benefits have flowed to other parts of the health profession. It is only right to know the context when we consider how they have been treated by the Rudd government. In Medicare payments, we have seen significant growth to the point where, since 2000, we have seen a 77 per cent expansion in payments made to GPs compared to an increase in average weekly earnings of 56 per cent and a CPI increase of 34 per cent. But pathology, with that $1.8 billion that is spent every year, has seen a growth of just seven per cent since 2000.
I will drill back a little further. Since 1996, we have seen an increase in the CPI of 149 per cent and an increase in average weekly earnings of over 200 per cent while pathology rebates have gone down by 4.9 per cent. You can only use improving technology as an excuse for that up to a point. There are bands within which pathology loyally stays to make sure that prices are as low as possible and then, overlaid upon that, there is a Rudd government that rips the carpet out from under pathologists and simply says to Australia, ‘If you have a few tests we will bulk-bill you, but if you have a few too many it doesn’t matter if you are a retiree, a child or on a concession card, we will not allow those services to be billed through Medicare.’
It was short-sighted. It was foolish. It was penny-pinching, nickel and diming, from the Rudd government. That is what we saw in so many cases until they hit the screen and there was a need for a political pre-election escape. Then the money flowed, and we are now learning just how much of that will be spent on wasteful regional bureaucracies. There is no health revolution in this country; there is merely a revolution in the government of health care.
What they have done with pathology is one of the darkest moments in Rudd’s so-called health reforms. We have seen over the last 2½ years very little that pathology can be thankful for. This government in this term had a chance to fix that, to amend it, and make good with pathology, but instead it came up with this piece of minor, flimflam, insignificant legislation about increasing choice for pathology services. It is a great smokescreen. It is a complete tragedy for the thousands of people employed in pathology around this country who devote their lives to serve the people who under the Rudd government are now least able to afford it.
I rise to support the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to improve patient choice with respect to pathology services. Currently the act requires that, in most cases, in order for a Medicare benefit to be payable for a pathology service rendered by or on behalf of an approved pathology practitioner, a request for the service must be made to that particular pathology practitioner or the approved pathology authority, who is the proprietor of the laboratory at which the service is rendered. This means that a patient is effectively required to attend the approved pathology practitioner or authority named on the request form. This restriction does not apply to other diagnostic services that attract Medicare benefits.
This bill removes this restriction so that, while there will still be a legislative requirement for a request for a pathology service to be made, there will no longer be a requirement that the request be made to a particular approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority. This legislative change will allow patients to take a pathology request to a pathology provider of their choice and will encourage providers to compete on price and convenience for patients.
This measure was announced in the 2009-10 budget with an effective date of 1 July 2010. There was $140,000 allocated for this measure in the 2009-10 budget. This included funding for a communications strategy. The Rudd government has made a major commitment to health reform for all Australians. Part of that reform is to increase competition and patient choice, and that is what this bill does.
As further evidenced in the budget delivered by the Treasurer last night, this government is taking action on its major commitment to health reform. In the budget the government is acting to ensure more Australians can more easily access appropriate health care by making a strategic investment to support and recognise the work of nurse practitioners. As part of the government’s nursing package, $390.3 million will be provided to better support practice nurses and for the first time provide funding for GPs in urban areas to help employ practice nurses. Annual incentive payments of $25,000 per full-time GP for a registered nurse and $12,500 per full-time GP for an enrolled nurse will be made available to eligible accredited general practices.
The government will transform the way Australians with long-term illnesses are treated, starting with improving health outcomes for the nearly one million Australians living with diabetes, too many of whom end up being treated in hospitals unnecessarily. The government is committing $449.2 million to improve care for people with diabetes. For the first time Australians with diabetes will have the option of signing up with a GP practice. The practice will be responsible for managing all aspects of their care and be paid in part for keeping patients healthy and out of hospital.
Through these key reforms this government is committed to delivering better health outcomes for all Australians. The 2010-11 budget will deliver a massive $1.2 billion boost to GP and primary health care, including $355.2 million to building and upgrading GP superclinics. This will honour the Rudd government’s commitment to deliver real improvements in front-line health services for patients across Australia. The Rudd government will upgrade around 425 primary healthcare facilities into GP superclinics and construct around 23 new dedicated GP superclinics. This strengthens the Rudd government’s $275.2 million GP Super Clinics Program, which is delivering 36 GP superclinics across the country.
GP superclinics take pressure off public hospitals, provide better integrated and more accessible care, help attract health professionals to areas of need and give health professionals of the future more training options. The government is delivering a GP superclinic in the northern area of my electorate, which has the full support of not only the local community but the division of general practice, doctors in general, the University of Newcastle and the area health service.
Once this new GP superclinic is fully operational in the Warnervale area it will employ more than 100 health professionals. It will take demand off the emergency department of Wyong Hospital, which is now one of the busiest in the state—in fact, the fourth busiest in New South Wales. Already, even though it is only a temporary GP superclinic, there are 2,000 patients on its books, which reflects the need for additional doctors and health professionals in the growing suburbs on the Central Coast. To further alleviate the pressure on emergency departments, including the one at Wyong, the budget outlined by the Treasurer last night allocates new money towards limiting to four hours the time in which patients will be seen to in emergency departments. This will be done by increasing the capacity of the emergency departments.
Of the new GP superclinics, about nine large clinics will be built where doctors, nurses and health professionals will be supplemented by more specialised services such as renal dialysis, minor surgical procedures, rehabilitation services and radiology. The remaining new GP superclinics will be built along the lines of the 36 clinics already under construction. By providing patients with more convenient one-stop shops the government will help and encourage patients to get the primary care they need to stay fit and well, particularly if they suffer from chronic illnesses.
Three types of funding will be available to help existing general practices expand their facilities, with grants of up to $500,000. These larger grants will be available to those practices that also establish teaching facilities. Additional services will be made available as a result of the infrastructure investment, with space made available in GP clinics for allied health services; group education, such as diabetes management; counselling; and community health promotion.
The injection in super GP clinics builds on the additional primary care being committed to by the Rudd government, including funding for a record number of GPs, more support and training for around 4,600 full-time equivalent practice nurses and a new innovative approach to improve the treatment of diabetes in GP practices. These infrastructure investments are part of the government’s move to take over full funding and policy responsibility for primary care.
We are also improving Medicare and making Medicare more accessible to Australians. The figures show that Medicare is working. In the December quarter 2009 a total of $3.9 billion was paid in Medicare benefits for 77.1 million services. This represented 3.5 services and about $179 in benefits for every Australian. In that quarter 73.9 per cent of all services were bulk-billed, up 0.2 per cent on the September quarter 2009 and up 0.1 per cent on the December quarter 2008. A total of 79.6 per cent of non-referred GP attendances were bulk-billed, up 0.8 per cent on the September quarter 2009 and up 0.6 per cent on the December quarter 2008. Medicare is working, and so is private health insurance. Yet amazingly, no matter how much evidence there is about the continuing improvements to both of these health insurance systems, those on the other side cannot accept the truth—they simply ignore the facts and figures.
Even more evidence was released recently that proved the opposition got it wrong when they predicted a huge drop in private health insurance membership. Private health insurance membership figures released in February revealed that the number of Australians taking out cover continues to grow. More than 45,000 extra people are now covered by private hospital insurance and more than 55,000 extra people have general treatment or ancillary cover. A total of 44.7 per cent of all Australians were covered by private hospital insurance in the December 2009 quarter, continuing to be the highest proportion of people with hospital insurance since December 2001. The opposition said that up to a million people would drop their private health insurance because of the Rudd government. Instead, the people have emphatically proved their claim wrong with 474,000 more taking out hospital cover under the Rudd government. Yet the opposition do not accept that they are wrong—they never do. It is time that the opposition came clean and admitted they got it wrong on private health insurance.
The government is making the private health insurance system fairer and more sustainable. Under changes proposed by the government the private insurance of singles on incomes of over $120,000 or couples earning more than $240,000 will no longer be subsidised by the taxpayers. That is fair, Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin. Treasury modelling estimates that after these reforms 99.7 per cent of people will remain in private health insurance. This measure is part of the government’s reform of the health system. It will save $1.9 billion over the next four years and allow the government to invest more in better services, new medicines and improved technology.
We are embarking on the largest reform of our health and hospital system since the introduction of Medicare. We are intent on delivering better health services and better hospitals by establishing a National Health and Hospitals Network. Under this plan there will be a national network to bring together eight state-run systems with one set of tough national standards to deliver better hospital services. The network will be funded nationally, with the Australian government taking on the dominant funding responsibility for the hospital system. The government will end the blame game, eliminate waste, and shoulder the burden of funding to meet rapidly rising health costs.
And while it will be funded nationally, the network will be run locally through local hospital networks. These networks will bring together small groups of hospitals where local professionals with local knowledge are given the necessary powers to deliver hospital services to our communities. These changes will be achieved by the Commonwealth taking the following actions: we will take 60 per cent of funding responsibility for public hospitals; we will take over full responsibility for GP and primary healthcare services; under our plan the local hospital networks will be run by health and financial professionals who will be responsible for running their local hospitals, rather than central bureaucracies; local hospital networks will be paid directly for each hospital service they deliver, rather than block funding grants being handed over to the states; and we will bring fragmented health and hospital services together under a single National Health and Hospitals Network through strong transparent national reporting. These reforms have been put to the states and territories and have been agreed to at the COAG meeting on 11 April.
The people of the New South Wales Central Coast, where my electorate is, would welcome a stand-alone health system and a local hospitals network that is truly local, unlike the present structure in which our health system is just part of northern Sydney’s health system. We are fighting hard on the Central Coast to gain a true regional identity, one that sees all the major institutions including health and education become their own local organisations and not just systems that are part of either Sydney or the Hunter.
After nearly 12 years of neglect of Australia’s health system by the coalition, this government is getting on with what Australians have been crying out for for a long time: to fix our health and hospital system. Over the coming months the Rudd government will make further announcements about important investments in more doctors and nurses, increasing the availability of hospital beds, improving GP services, and introducing personally controlled electronic health records, which was announced last night in the budget.
My constituents of Dobell on the lovely Central Coast have consistently told me how important it is for the blame game to be over and for us to get on with the job of improving the health system. Those on the other side must let us get on with this task and not block it like they have done so many other times. The establishment of the National Health and Hospitals Network will build on the record investments in health and hospitals made by the Rudd government over the past two years, including a 50 per cent increase in hospital funding, increasing GP training places by 35 per cent and training more nurses.
The government’s actions are in stark contrast to those of the Liberals, who ripped $1 billion from our hospital system when they were in government, capped GP training places and ignored the shortage of nurses in our community. And now the opposition is standing in the way of further reforms that would make the private health rebate system fairer for families. To private health insurance there would be a sensible moderate change that asks high-income earners to contribute more for their insurance so that it is sustainable for us to provide generous support to lower and middle-income earners. On Tuesday, 9 March this year the private health insurance rebate, the last piece of three pieces of legislation, was rejected by the Senate. This decision blows a $2 billion hole in the budget and by the middle of this century that will be $100 billion. This is money that needs to be better spent within the health system, providing for the growing health needs of the community.
But unfortunately this is not the only piece of legislation that is being blocked in the Senate when it comes to health and important priorities for the community. The Liberals are blocking other changes in the Senate. They have twice blocked changes that we took to the last election to make sure that we could provide more than a million extra dental services to the most needy in our community. This is an opposition which is determined to say no. It is an opposition that is taking a reckless approach to the Senate, and it is about time that the public understood the lengths that the opposition leader will go simply to oppose for opposition’s sake.
We have a major task ahead under these reforms, and the bill I am speaking in support of today is but one part of that reform. Let me go back to some of the details of what the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010 will achieve. The bill will amend the current legislative requirements concerning when Medicare benefits are payable for pathology services to allow patients to take a pathology request to an approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority of their choice. Doctors will still be able and encouraged to advise patients on their choice of pathology provider. It is anticipated that in most cases patients will attend the approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority recommended by their doctor.
Peak representative bodies for the pathology industry have expressed concerns over how this initiative will affect continuity of care for patients. Doctors are free to inform patients that taking the request form to the doctor’s preferred pathology provider may allow better tracking of their results. Pathology providers will still be allowed to produce branded request forms—that includes a provider’s company logo and address—and provide these to requesting practitioners. Changes to relevant regulations are planned to mandate that requests for pathology services include a clear and understandable statement, which is obviously positioned, making patients aware that requests can be taken to any approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority.
This proposal will be implemented from 1 July 2010 with a transition period of 12 months in respect of the changes to the regulations to minimise any regulatory impact on practices. The Department of Health and Ageing will undertake a communication campaign before the changes are implemented to ensure that the changes are well understood by practitioners.
The Liberal Party, the opposition, have stood in the way of almost all the reforms that this government has put up in terms of health. People in my electorate simply want them to get out of the way and let this government get on with providing better health care for the people of the Central Coast. Not only have they been blocking it; they are also now telling untruths. It is unfortunate that I have to report that the Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Robertson has today misled the local community in relation to an announcement made by the Prime Minister two weeks ago for a cancer unit on the Central Coast for which the federal government is providing $28.6 million. This cancer centre is one that for which we have signed a contract with the state government and is to be up and running in 2013. The member for Dickson—
2013?
Yes, in three years time; in 2013. The member for Dickson will understand that there is a need to be factually correct in his former job, and it is of some disappointment that the Liberal candidate, currently a policeman on the Central Coast, has been saying that this cancer institute being set up on the Central Coast that we have all campaigned so hard for will not be up and running for 10 years.
If this is evidence of the bona fides of this candidate, if he is prepared to lie outright in terms of what is actually happening, then it is a very sad reflection both on him personally and on the Liberal Party in relation to what lengths they will go to. We know that the Liberal Party and the truth are not comfortable bedfellows, but I think it is atrocious that we have a candidate in the field lying outright about a particular issue and saying that this cancer institute will not be up and running for 10 years when it was clearly announced by the Rudd government, by the Prime Minister himself, that it will be up and running in 2013.
It is a very sorry state when you have a candidate who pays no regard to the facts, no regard to the truth. This is a candidate that I expected more of. Both he and I are members of the Terrigal Surf Lifesaving Club, and we know each other well. It is very disappointing, and I can hopefully put it down to inexperience. It is very disappointing that he is making public comments without checking his facts and totally trying to mislead the local community in relation to this matter.
It is an example—unfortunately, a local example—of the type of approach we get from those opposite in relation to health. They will say anything. They will do anything to try and mislead, to put an oppositional position, in relation to what are great reforms, great advances, that this government is doing in taking on and trying to improve Australia’s health system. This bill is a small part of those reforms and one that I commend to the House.
While I am not aware of what the Liberal candidate for Robertson has said in relation to the matter of this cancer centre on the Central Coast of New South Wales, even if the Rudd government has promised that this particular centre will be established by 2013, given the serial policy of breaking of promises we have seen from the Rudd Labor government in recent times, one could not be confident that the cancer centre would in fact be constructed by 2013; in fact, one could not be surprised if it was not built until 10 years time.
Having said that, I want to stress strongly that the provision of health services remains an issue of concern for the people I represent in the electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast. We desperately need the Sunshine Coast University Hospital that was promised before the last state election by the Bligh Labor government. No sooner had they crawled back into office when they postponed the construction date for the Sunshine Coast University Hospital by a couple of years. This is at a time when the state government is seeking to massively increase the population of the Sunshine Coast through development without making sure that we have in place the infrastructure needed to meet the needs of such a dramatically growing population.
I have written to the Prime Minister and have not received a reply, and I have also written to the Minister for Health and Ageing. She has replied via her parliamentary secretary seeking that the federal government should step in and fund the Sunshine Coast University Hospital, given the fact that the Bligh Labor government has broken its promise to build the hospital by a certain date.
I am very disappointed that in the budget we saw last night there was no mention that the Sunshine Coast University Hospital would be funded. I suppose it is no surprise because, after all, the way this government has spent this country into deficit, it is simply broke. Not only do we have a situation where the future of today’s Australians is mortgaged; the future of Australians not yet born will be mortgaged for many years into the future.
Sunshine Coast residents will, however, welcome the provisions of the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010. I support this bill in the context of complaints I have had from local constituents about the varying charging policies of pathology providers on the Sunshine Coast. There was a situation where a certain pathology provider had been bulk-billing services provided to patients but had then unilaterally decided to stop bulk-billing those services. Some constituents were left out of pocket as a result of that pathology provider’s change of policy. When people contacted me, I pointed out that it is not possible to determine from a government level whether individual pathology services choose to bulk-bill or not, but that clients of pathology services—constituents of members of parliament—are entitled to vote with their feet. I have advised constituents that they ought to shop around to ascertain which pathology services are bulk-billing and which are not. I am very pleased to report that, when people moved in the other direction, the pathology service which had stopped bulk-billing started bulk-billing again. I suppose that showed the strength of the market.
We on the Sunshine Coast are very fortunate to have a large number of pathology providers and a large number of centres where people are able to pass on specimens requiring analysis by pathology providers. This bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010, will mean that patients will be able to go to a pathology provider of their choice. I think this will make it easier for constituents to shop around in the event that some pathology providers choose to charge a very large gap fee for people needing their services.
The opposition is not opposing this bill and I think that is very much the appropriate way to go, but I just want to stress that we on the Sunshine Coast are very disappointed with the policies of the Bligh Labor government and the Rudd Labor government with respect to the healthcare needs of Sunshine Coast residents. We are a very important area. Our population will double over the next 10 to 15 years. Unfortunately governments are failing us in so many ways with respect to the provision of very necessary infrastructure. I noticed that last night’s budget made no mention of upgrading the Bruce Highway to six lanes all the way from Caboolture to the Sunshine Coast. There was no indication that we were going to receive the government assistance that we so desperately need in so many areas. It is as though we are a support-free zone as far as the Labor government is concerned.
When one looks at the budget, it is clear the whole thing was predicated on a great big new tax, the mining tax, which is by no means certain to pass through the parliament. It is by no means certain that the mining companies will stay in Australia. The Canadian government has even made overtures to these mining companies, inviting them to go to Canada. Mining companies can vote with their feet and they can move abroad and it could well be that this great big new tax is not passed into law. It could well be that, even if it were passed into law, the mining companies might not be prepared to continue to provide employment here. They might not be prepared to continue to have the level of involvement in Australia that they currently do. If you take away the rug—that is, the great big new tax of the Labor government—then the budget is entirely unfunded. It is another typical Labor budget which is simply a spend budget, another budget making the future of Australians even grimmer. It is important to remember that, when this government was elected to office in 2007, it inherited a budget surplus. Now we are almost the only Third World country where you can drink the water.
This bill of itself contains very positive measures. I support it strongly, but I just wanted to highlight the serial failure of the state and federal Labor governments to attend to the healthcare needs of residents of the electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast. I commend this bill to the House.
I, too, add my support to the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010. This bill removes the requirement that a request for a Medicare-eligible pathology service be made to a particular pathology provider. Currently, when a doctor sends a patient off for a diagnostic test, the patient will be handed a request form including the name of a particular pathology provider. This has been a feature of the existing Medicare arrangements, according to which a Medicare benefit is only payable if a designated pathology provider is named in the referral request. The patient is therefore required to go to the pathology provider specified by his or her doctor. This means that the choice of pathology provider is one for the doctor to make. Usually the doctor hands the patient a form produced by a pathology provider headed up with that provider’s brand and logo and that is the provider the patient goes to. The referral request, as I said, must nominate a specific pathology provider for the service to then be eligible for a Medicare rebate.
The bill before the House seeks to amend the Health Insurance Act to remove that requirement. Our proposal is for patients to be free to take the pathology request to any approved and accredited pathology provider. As previous speakers have highlighted, we anticipate that this will lead to increased competition between pathology providers and hopefully keep costs down for both patients and the health system. The act will still require a pathology provider to be in receipt of a referral from a medical practitioner. There will, however, no longer be a requirement for that referral request to specify a particular pathology provider in order for the service to be rebatable through Medicare. Under this new system, the patient will be free to go to any accredited pathology provider and a rebate will be payable for that service.
Importantly, there is nothing in the bill to stop doctors from advising their patients on their choice of pathology providers and providers are still allowed to produce branded request forms and to provide these to medical practitioners to hand out to their patients. Changes to current regulations will, however, mean that those forms will now also include an obvious statement to make patients aware that requests can be taken to any approved pathology provider of their choice. This is a change, but it is important to note that the proposal in this bill is similar to the system that has operated in the diagnostic imaging sector for some time.
In contrast to the pathology sector, right now when a patient is referred to a diagnostic imaging provider there is no corresponding requirement for a particular provider to be specified in the request. Patients with a referral to a diagnostic imaging service can therefore take their request for service to any provider. This change brings the pathology sector into line with the existing practice in the diagnostic imaging sector.
On the face of it, this measure is a simple one. It is, however, part of the government’s broader response to the challenge of preparing our health system for the future. We know that we face rising health costs due to our growing population, the ageing of the population and the increase in chronic disease. These are all big challenges that will put huge demands on our health system. We came to government knowing that we had to undertake reform of our health system to make sure it was ready to meet those demands. To do that, we have to remove the duplication and inefficiencies from the current system. We have to make sure that our health-spending dollar is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. This measure to increase patient choice and encourage competition in the pathology sector is consistent with those goals.
I want to also use my contribution tonight to record my support for the government’s proposals to improve Australia’s health system, and that list is growing longer by the day. There is already a very long list of reforms, more in the budget last night, and important investments in the health system that this Labor government is delivering on in stark contrast to the record of inaction and neglect of the previous government. We are dealing with the legacy of the previous Minister for Health and Ageing, now the Leader of the Opposition, who did nothing to improve the health system and its capacity to meet the needs of the Australian community. On the contrary, the opposition leader took money out of our public hospitals, capped the number of doctors being trained and did nothing to rein in rising costs and inefficiencies that threaten the viability of the entire system.
We want the health system to work better. The Australian people are looking to us to restore faith in the health system and to make sure it is prepared for the future. We have spent our term in government working on the longer term question of how best to structure and fund our health system, but in the meantime we certainly have not ignored the immediate challenges and problems we inherited from the previous health minister. That is why very early in our term we negotiated the current Australian Health Care Agreement with the states, which includes a 50 per cent increase in hospital funding in the life of the five-year agreement. That amounts to a $64 billion investment in health care.
Already we have committed an unprecedented $1.1 billion towards training more doctors, nurses and health professionals. Under this plan we were already on target to increase GP training places by 35 per cent over the numbers that the opposition leader left us when he was the health minister. Earlier this year, we announced that we would build on that existing commitment to training with an additional $632 million. This will make it possible to train a record number of doctors. We will finally be able to turn the tide on the shortage of doctors that has been at the heart of so many of the problems with our health system for years now, a problem that was completely ignored by the previous government.
We are talking about doubling the number of places available for medical graduates to train to become GPs from 600 when this government took office to 1,200 a year by 2014. It more than doubles the current number of places available for medical graduates to undertake training to become specialist doctors from 360 to 900 by 2014. In even better news for electorates like mine, priority will be given to providing training places in rural and regional areas where access to specialists has been particularly difficult for many years.
There will also be more opportunities for junior doctors to experience a career in general practice before they become fully fledged doctors. The current Prevocational General Practice Placements Program gives junior doctors the opportunity to undertake a 10- to 12-week placement with an experienced general practitioner after they graduate from medical school. This program will be expanded from 400 places to 975 places by 2013-14.
The previous government ignored all the warnings about doctor shortages and even took decisions that made matters worse. Our government is serious about health reform and a big part of making the health system work for all Australians is making sure that there are enough doctors and that there are doctors located right across the country in towns and cities, big and small.
The new funding announced in March shows that we have listened and understood the warnings and that we are determined to build a health system that will be strong enough and flexible enough to meet the growing demands for health care. This latest package of measures will deliver an additional 5,500 new or training GPs, 680 medical specialists and 5,400 prevocational training places over the next 10 years. Finally, we are turning the tide on doctor shortages. That is great news for all Australians and particularly for the people in my electorate who have first-hand experience of what the doctor shortage means for those living outside the capital cities.
I am pleased to say that our commitment to better health care goes even further than that. There has been unprecedented direct investment by the federal government in the capital needs of local hospitals. There was $76 million in the 2009 budget for the Rockhampton Base Hospital alone. That is happening right around the country and shows that this Labor government wants to work with local hospitals and health services to understand the present and future needs of their communities and to make the necessary investments in the infrastructure to meet those needs. Another local example from my electorate is the full-time MRI licence the Rockhampton Base Hospital was promised in the 2007 election and granted in 2008. Thanks to the Labor government, we now have a full-time MRI machine operating in Rockhampton and the Commonwealth government is providing Medicare rebates for those services. Other reforms include our investment in preventative health. This is something that everyone agrees is necessary if people are to live healthy and productive lives and something that needs to be a central part of our health system if we are to manage increasing rates of disease and the escalating costs associated with that.
All of these are important reforms, and there are so many more that I could mention. These reforms all now fit within the broader structural reform the Prime Minister and the premiers signed up to last month—that is, the pledge by the government that the Commonwealth will assume the majority funding responsibility for public hospitals through a National Health and Hospitals Network that will be funded nationally and run locally.
I have outlined what is just a part of the government’s plans for major health reform in this country—health reform that is all about delivering better services to the people—to demonstrate our determination to do what needs to be done. The opposition leader had his chance when he was health minister to show that he cared about the health care that people received in communities around Australia, but he failed that test. He walked away from that responsibility time and again. However, not content with his failure to deliver as health minister, he now wants to get in the way of the government’s plans to fix the mess he and the previous government left us with.
One of the goals of health and hospital reform is, obviously, to deliver better care, but that is not possible unless you put the health system on a strong and sustainable financial footing. We cannot go on ignoring the warnings, like the Intergenerational report, the way the previous government did. We would end up with the health system buckling under its own weight and being completely unaffordable. That is why all of our reforms are very focused on spending money where it needs to be spent so that spending is as efficient and effective as it can be in delivering health outcomes.
In contrast, the opposition are intent on blocking every savings measure we put forward—sensible, responsible savings measures that help underpin the reform that is needed to the health system. They opposed the means-testing of the private health insurance rebate, at a cost to the budget of $2 billion. They backed the ophthalmologists when the government tried to adjust rebates for simple procedures. They blocked the government’s efforts to close down the flawed chronic disease dental scheme, a program that was supposed to cost $377 million over four years but which has cost $800 million in the last two years alone. The list goes on. Altogether, the opposition are blowing an $11 billion hole in the health budget over the forward estimates. The opposition’s failure to implement changes like these is financially irresponsible and puts our health system at great risk of not being able to cope with the rising demand from our growing and ageing population. We know we need that money to be put to work in a better health system.
The people of Central Queensland have been telling me for years about their priority when it comes to health services: there is a great need for an improvement in cancer services in Central Queensland to stop the heartbreaking reality of so many people having to travel to Brisbane and be separated from their family to receive the treatment that they need once they have been diagnosed with cancer. That is why I welcomed the call in November last year for applications to the government’s regional cancer centre program and I strongly supported the application which went forward to that program from the Rockhampton Base Hospital. I was delighted when the Prime Minister came to Rockhampton just a few weeks ago to announce that, indeed, the Rockhampton Base Hospital would be the site for one of those regional cancer centres. We will be putting $67 million towards the upgrade to cancer services in Rockhampton which will serve the whole Central Queensland community—people in places like Emerald and Gladstone as well as in the rural towns around Rockhampton. Among other things, the funding will provide for additional chemotherapy chairs, taking the number of chairs from five, I think, to 16, and also for moving towards being able to provide radiation therapy in Rockhampton.
I raised the issues of the MRI and the cancer centre just to illustrate once more why the government are so focused on finding efficiencies and savings within the health budget. We need to get the most out of every health dollar to ensure Australians can get the care that they need now and into the future. The change contained in the bill before the House right now is a fair and common-sense proposal and it is consistent with this goal. It increases choice for patients, and we also hope it will increase competition in the pathology sector. It is a very sensible reform and one that I am happy to support.
I rise to give support today to this amendment to the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010. This important amendment aims to improve patient choice in respect of pathology services. The act in its current form requires that, in order for a Medicare benefit to be payable for a pathology service rendered by or on behalf of an approved pathology practitioner, a request for the service must be made to that particular pathology practitioner or to the approved pathology authority, who is the proprietor of the laboratory through which the service is rendered. The Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill amends the Health Insurance Act by removing this restriction.
To explain it more simply, under the current act a patient is effectively required to attend the approved pathology practitioner or authority named on the request form by a GP or specialist. This legislative change will allow patients to take a pathology request to a pathology provider of their choice and will encourage providers to compete on price and convenience for patients. It improves choice and increases convenience for patients, and that is something the Rudd government are committed to providing in the healthcare sector. Doctors will still be able and encouraged to advise patients on their choice of pathology provider. It is anticipated that in most cases patients will attend the approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority recommended by their doctor. It must also be mentioned that pathology providers will still be allowed to produce branded request forms that include a provider’s company logo and address and provide these to requesting practitioners.
This proposal will be implemented from 1 July 2010, with a transition period of 12 months in respect of the changes to the regulations, to minimise any regulatory impact on practices. This amendment will ensure that patients have real choice in pathology services. Most importantly, it will make access to pathology services easier for patients. I must stress that, in my own electorate, having choice in terms of access to medical services and having convenience in accessing those services is an issue that is front and centre.
Recently we saw the closure of the Lambton Family Medical Centre. When we do not see a patient centred approach to the provision of medical services, as elected representatives we certainly learn all about it. The medical centre that I am referring to was owned by Primary Health Care and was closed by Primary Health Care with no notice to staff or patients. In fact, it closed on a Friday. Anyone who turned up at the door of that surgery or who rang trying to arrange future appointments or get access to other information or services on Friday, 19 March was told of that closure. Staff and doctors themselves were informed on that very day. A sign was placed in the window of the Lambton Family Medical Centre informing anyone walking past that the practice was closed, that the transfer of the practice would happen over the weekend and that Primary Health Care would take the Lambton Family Medical Centre to its other Newcastle based medical centre, at Charlestown.
I must stress that the Lambton Family Medical Centre premises have been used as a general practice surgery for 108 years. Lambton is a suburb with many long-term residents and so you can imagine that there is an amazing attachment to that centre by those much older patients. The premises were leased to Primary Health Care by one of the doctors working with that practice.
When the distress of patients became obvious, naturally I wrote to Primary Health Care for some explanation as to why they would close that practice so abruptly without regard to patient need, as was being brought to my attention. I received a response from Mr Henry Bateman himself, the CEO of Primary Health Care, and I spoke to him personally on the phone. He said to me that it was no longer a viable practice and he could not be assured that the lease would be renewed or of the continuity of availability of the two full-time GPs and five part-time GPs operating from that centre. He also said that it was tough managing medical practices, that the rebate was not sufficient to make them viable and that he actually used his own pathology services to cross-subsidise the practice. I can say to you that the patients were not particularly interested in that. They were very concerned, particularly when on the following day, Saturday, a company called Sidameneo, acting on behalf of Primary Health Care, came in to vacate those promises and make them good. I have seen photos of and I have looked through the window at the damage done to that surgery. It is extensive, it is extreme and certainly there would be concerns that there was some intent to do as much damage as possible. I looked up that company, Sidameneo, in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission records, which showed that this company is a one-share, one-dollar company and it has four directors: Mr Henry Bateman, Mr Gregory Bateman, Mr James Bateman and Mr Andrew Duff.
Obviously the patients were witness to the fate of that practice—it is in their local shopping centre—and they were distressed by it and concerned that a practice that they had frequented and felt some sense of loyalty towards was being treated in such a way. I am told that there were 11,900 people registered with the Lambton practice who were active patients in the last two years. They started to contact me, concerned for their patient records, for the continuity of care and about the transfer of the practice and their records to Primary Health Care’s Charlestown centre.
I visited the site of the former Lambton Family Medical Centre. I had advertised my planned attendance at the centre only that morning on local radio and, when I arrived, there were already 70 people waiting to see me. Over 100 people came during the day and a half to talk about their feelings. They expressed to me their anger towards Primary Health Care for the way the practice had been closed and for how they had not been informed. They expressed that there was now some great distrust towards Primary Health Care. Many patients told me of the disruption to their care. One IVF patient needed constant monitoring by her doctor. Another patient was booked in for heart surgery, but, because specialist results were no longer available and no-one could track those down in time, his heart surgery had to be deferred.
When told about the transfer of records to the Charlestown centre, patients were particularly telling me that it was inconvenient. It is not a great distance from Lambton, but it is across a major highway and very inconvenient for older patients to attend. Some alleged they had attended that centre to ask for their records or to ask what was happening, and there were long queues of people outside the surgery trying to find out about their records. They also had no medical tests; they were awaiting medical tests. Many of the older people are on a special anticoagulant drug that needs constant monitoring. They wanted someone to tell them that their records or their test results were there so that they could find other GPs.
At that stage I had 200 patients request that their records not be left with Primary Health Care and that GP Access, our local division of general practice, manage the distribution of their records. I wrote to Primary Health Care suggesting that they could perhaps consider entering into an agreement with GP Access to manage the transfer of the 11,900 patients. GP Access, of course, is the nation’s leader in after-hours care and has a call centre available all day. It offered to do that at no cost to Primary Health Care and no cost to patients. The patients who were arriving at Charlestown were told that, if they did not find a GP to help them access those records within a month, they would be charged up to $100 for their records. They had great difficulty, given the shortage of GPs, getting an appointment with another GP.
Fortunately GP Access provided some special after-hours clinics at the local centres that they operate to fix up prescriptions and attend to any urgent matters of those patients. Some local GPs whose books were closed offered one consultation for the patients of Lambton Family Medical Centre just to help them out—and remember this was two weeks before the Easter period, so it was a very hard time for those patients. That was refused by Primary Health Care, as was their right. They said to me: ‘We are competitors. GP Access and Primary Health Care are commercial competitors in the medical services field.’ They said they would not be entering into any agreement. That was disappointing because it would have brought some credit to Primary Health Care and would have shown some concern for their patients.
The difficulty was that only one doctor transferred to the new Primary Health Care centre. Of course he was able to make appointments for any Lambton Family Medical Centre patients, but patients then told me of the difficulty of getting an appointment and the queues that they had to endure to access any doctor at the new centre. Unfortunately, things did not end there. It seems that Primary Health Care had entered into a contract with the previous doctors who worked with them, and then they proceeded to exercise restraint of trade clauses. This is in a regional city that already has shortages of medical general practitioners. It is a difficult situation where five doctors are taken out of circulation and Primary Health Care can only offer access to one, and then we have them exercise a restraint of trade clause through litigation.
There was also litigation from the landlord, a doctor who owned the premises, for the damage to property. It is a fairly nasty situation, and for me, as the member for Newcastle, my concern is patient care. I would like to share with you some of the stories of patients at that practice. For example, one of my constituents says she had been a patient at that centre for more than 36 years. She had two pulmonary embolisms nine years ago and has weekly blood testings. She is known for her prescription for warfarin. Usually she could ring the family medical centre and get the results over the phone without having to speak to her doctor. When she rang the new Primary Health Centre at Charlestown for results after her records were transferred, she was put on hold for 30 minutes before being told those results were not available. She called four times the next day for those results but still was not given an answer. She had her number taken each time and was told she would be called back, but she was not called back. During the last call she was told her new doctor would have to call back to get her results. She was not called back until 7.30 pm the following evening, two days after her initial inquiry.
Another constituent of mine from North Lambton is a 33-year-old mother of two. Her husband passed away on Good Friday of a terminal illness. As a former patient of one of the doctors who had practised at Lambton Family Medical Centre, she was required to contact her doctor to have the death certificate of her husband signed. She went to the Charlestown Centre on Saturday, the day after her husband died, to ask if the previous doctor was available to sign the certificate. But she was told that they were unable to contact that doctor and that no other doctor was available to sign the death certificate. Fortunately GP Access did assist her to find that doctor and have the death certificate signed. Primary Health Care must have realised that their actions were an extremely rude and inconsiderate thing to do to a patient, and they asked her to come and speak to them about that. They spent a few minutes apologising and then they spent the rest of the time justifying their actions, seeking sympathy for what they had done. Her words to me were, ‘I don’t like to be rude, but, after 10 minutes of hearing them justify their position, I left.’ That is just unacceptable.
Another constituent told me that he had a serious diabetes condition and for over 20 years had been with one of the former doctors. He was unable to access the new surgery and when he did he faced long waits to see his doctor. Because he had built up trust with that doctor, he did not want to see other doctors. He did manage to find another GP in a nearby suburb, but his health deteriorated rapidly and he was faced with a wait of up to a week to access another GP. Unfortunately that patient passed away shortly after. I do not draw any connection to that, but what I have to say is this was distressing for very many aged patients. There were no measures put in place by Primary Health Care to monitor high-needs patients and respond to their needs. Other patients complained of the lack of independence. One of my constituents, who is blind and has a guide dog, could walk to the surgery and now feels that his whole independence has been taken away from him.
I know that each patient has an individual situation, but these were just a few of the hundreds of patients who shared their stories with me. It is not good enough for Primary Health Care to adopt a corporate approach to the delivery of medical services. Under duty of care, under negligence laws, it must be a case of them having to do a little bit more than they did in the case of the Lambton Family Medical Centre. I am distressed for my constituents that Primary Health Care conducted themselves so badly. I do not feel there was a need for that. I do feel there was an opportunity for decent collaboration that would have assisted continuity of care and certainly Primary Health Care could do everything it wanted after that, after it fulfilled that responsibility, to compete hard for the patients.
I would have thought that the bottom line of any business would always improve when customer service was at least part of the plan. When I look at the media records around Primary Health Care—their closure of the Lambton Family Medical Centre, their closure of two practices here in Canberra in a similar way and the speed at which Dr Bateman and Primary Health Care enter into litigation, a very good way of stopping any opposition—I have to say to Dr Bateman: that is not acceptable practice.
I was so concerned about that sort of action that I wrote to all the peak bodies in Australia asking them how they enforce or encourage best practice and ethical standards in such an important area, patient care. I asked them:
I have received one response in that short period of time, from the Australian Medical Council. They have been instrumental in drawing up a national code of professional conduct for medical practitioners. That new code, Good medical practice, is very much needed because we are looking at requiring national registration of medical practitioners from the middle of this year. (Extension of time granted) I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their support in allowing me to extend my time to address these issues.
I am pleased that there is going to be a national code of conduct, but how is it going to be enforced? If it is going to be enforced through litigation, how are people going to withstand that? We know that Primary Health Care are even taking litigation around the use of the term ‘primary health care’—a phrase that preceded their existence. They are claiming all commercial rights to that phrase. I understand the issues of commercialisation and profit and return, but I do not think they fit well with a patient centred approach to medical care. I say to Primary Health Care: you would do well to try to marry your commercial needs with the needs of patients in a more humane and ethical way.
As you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, I became very involved with the minister, Nicola Roxon, and her office and with the Prime Minister on these issues. I am delighted to see in the budget that, just as in the legislation we are discussing, we have put patient care at the centre of the relationship between doctors and pathology services and patients.
The situation with the Lambton Family Medical Centre in my electorate is unresolved. GP Access have done everything they can to help the patients to find new doctors and to assist the doctors who have been misplaced, but litigation continues. The litigation is now even extending to other places that host doctors from the centre that have not been satisfied to stay under the umbrella of Primary Health Care. I note from recent press articles that Primary Health Care adopted a practice at some of their centres of charging a co-payment. When a patient walked into one of these centres and said, ‘I want to see a GP,’ they would pay a co-payment. They might be told, ‘It’ll be 30 minutes.’ If they had to leave before seeing a doctor, to pick up their child from child care or whatever, even if they had sat there waiting for two or three hours, they would have to forfeit the co-payment. I find it extraordinary and unbelieve that that would be acceptable to any firm in general practice. I say to Primary Health Care: please reconsider taking legal action in the case of doctors involved at the Lambton Family Medical Centre, please reconsider your conduct for the sake of your reputation, and please follow the codes of conduct that are being developed.
Patients in Newcastle will be very pleased that we are addressing some of these problems. E-health records will be such a benefit. Patients having control of their records will be exemplary in the area of patient centred care. At this stage in Newcastle people are getting half a page to represent 20 years of interaction with their doctors. That is not a patient record. I do not know why patients are not being given their full records, but I do not think it is acceptable. E-heath records will be an improvement, as will be the ability for doctors to apply for infrastructure grants. Looking at the destruction of the Lambton Family Medical Centre, I know it is going to take a grant to restore it to a surgery. I am told by the landlord that the improvements are his improvements; they do not belong to Primary Health Care. That is, of course, a matter of legal dispute. Grants for infrastructure will be a great thing, as will a Medicare local, using local networks of GPs, who can cooperate around these issues. Those are very welcome developments.
I thank Minister Roxon. I thank the Prime Minister for his interest in this matter. I particularly thank GP Access, who did everything they could to assist the patients in this regard.
The Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010 removes the legislative requirement for requests to be made to a particular approved pathology provider for Medicare benefits to be payable. The change will allow patients to access pathology services at any approved pathology provider. It is claimed that this measure will give patients additional choice and encourage price competition within the sector. On the face of it, the intent of this bill seems worthy. The coalition supports patient choice in accessing health care but we note concerns regarding the implementation of this change to pathology referrals. This is a significant change, and proper consideration needs to be given to patient safety and quality of care.
The 2009 budget measure was not subject to consultation. Submissions to the Department of Health and Ageing on implementation of this measure only closed on 22 February, some 12 days after the Minister for Health and Ageing introduced this bill into the parliament. As such, compelling concerns raised by stakeholders were not considered by the government prior to proceeding with this bill. There is variation in the range of services offered by pathology practices, the methods and equipment used and methods of communication between pathology practices and referring doctors. Cost is a very important consideration for patients, but it may not always be the most appropriate basis for deciding on a service provider.
In the minister’s second reading speech she admitted that ‘there are often valid clinical reasons for recommending a particular pathology provider over another’. The minister’s only comment on this issue was to say that the government will continue to encourage medical practitioners to discuss options with patients. That is an entirely insufficient response to a fundamental issue in this legislation. Clinical issues are not the only concern, though. Presently there are clear lines of communication between referring doctors and pathology practices. Pathology practices ensure that results are provided to GPs and other medical practitioners in a timely manner by means of established delivery systems and compatible IT systems. Pathology practices also often have established means of contacting referring doctors after hours and in cases of emergency.
The government has failed to explain how new referral pathways will operate in cases where the pathology practice is unknown to the referring doctor. A lost or delayed result may have very serious consequences for patients and medico-legal implications for the referring doctor. There are over 2,100 collection centres and almost 400 pathology laboratories in Australia. On the available information, there will be no way for referring doctors to trace results if a report goes missing or if the result is delayed. These are issues that the government should have considered and resolved prior to proceeding with this legislation.
It has been noted that similar arrangements already exist for diagnostic imaging. There are differences between pathology and diagnostic imaging procedures, and the number of tests per patient is generally lower for diagnostic imaging. Imaging tests are usually undertaken with the patient present, and the patient is provided with the results. It is also argued that imaging methodology is standard across all providers and, unlike pathology, diagnostic imaging is not as frequently used to monitor chronic conditions or medication treatment. It is incorrect to claim that the process that works for diagnostic imaging will work for pathology services.
The government’s record in health has done nothing to improve the situation for patients. There is growing concern in the community about decreasing levels of bulk billing for pathology. This largely affects older Australians—self-funded retirees and pensioners with fixed incomes. Now faced with a situation of increased patient out-of-pocket expenses, the minister is responding by rushing through another measure. Once again, she has not thought through the detail, and bungling of this measure will affect patient health outcomes. It is irresponsible for a minister of the Crown to announce a policy without having any plan for its implementation. Unfortunately, we have seen the disastrous consequences of such recklessness with the Rudd government’s Home-Insulation Program.
This minister has a long list of bungles of her own. This House, and most Australians, are all too familiar with her bungled handling of health policy, including her baseless cuts to the cataract surgery rebate, the attempted capping of Medicare benefits for macular degeneration treatment, the bungled capping and backflip on Medicare IVF assistance, the cutting of funding for chemotherapy treatment, the complete farce of amending the government’s own midwife and nurse practitioner bill and then withdrawing the amendment and her blatant broken promises on private health insurance. Whilst there might be support for the intent of the bill before us, its implementation looks set to again be a bungled episode by a minister who has not worked through the detail. The minister has introduced a simple bill on pathology referrals without any idea of how it will operate in practice. If this minister cannot get the so called small ticket items right; how on earth can Australians trust this minister—or indeed this Prime Minister—to deliver major reform for our public hospitals?
The Rudd government could not manage a program putting insulation into ceilings. It is no wonder that there is so much concern about their ability to manage the health and hospital system. This will only get worse with the economically reckless Rudd government. The Rudd government cannot be trusted to run a $100 billion health system, and the minister’s inability to be across the detail is on display with this bill today. There are significant unresolved issues regarding the implementation of this measure which the government should have addressed prior to its introduction. The coalition does support measures which improve patient choice, but the government must demonstrate that a different pathology referral process can work and that patient health outcomes will not be adversely affected. A Senate committee inquiry into this bill is in its final stages and will hopefully provide some of the answers and do the work that the minister should have done.
Before I close, I want to address some of the false allegations that were made in an earlier contribution by the member for Dobell in relation to the candidate for Robertson, Darren Jameson. This was a grubby attack by the member for Dobell on the Liberal candidate for Robertson. It was a grubby, baseless attack, and it needs to be addressed. What I can say about Darren Jameson—
The member for Dickson is straying. I did not hear the comments from the member for Dobell, but this is not—
They were at length.
The member for Dickson will hear me out. This is not relevant to the bill. There are other forms in the House in which this matter can be taken up.
On the point of order, if I might just point out to the House and for your consideration that this is in fact relating to this bill, not just because there was a contribution made in the member’s speech but also because the health insurance amendment bill 2010 directly relates to the issue which is in dispute. The comments that were made by the member for Dobell relate to—
If you can link them to the bill then I can see it, but I cannot at the moment. If you can relate it for me then please do.
They relate to a service in relation to cancer and oncology services in this electorate, and that is how it relates to the health insurance amendment bill 2010. Some of the funding in this bill, as I understand it, is provided for these services, including those to which the member for Dobell referred earlier. So it is entirely appropriate that this be addressed because the Liberal candidate for Robertson, Darren Jameson, in a press release said that he was disappointed to learn that the new cancer clinic at Gosford Hospital announced by the Prime Minister was not a priority, is at the bottom of the list and could be some years away from becoming a reality. To quote:
Like all residents on the Central Coast I—
Darren Jameson—
welcome any funding that is directed into health services in that local area and as such I fully support the announcement made by the Prime Minster in Gosford.
However, it’s unforgivable to give false hope to cancer suffers and the impression that this facility was about to be delivered, when in reality the announcement was yet just another photo opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Premier.
Mr Jameson goes on:
I now urgently call on the government for some direct action, to commence discussions with the Central Coast Radiotherapy Oncology Centre …
I think the member for Dickson has made his point and is straying from the bill again.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I of course take your counsel. But, for your consideration, this is directly related to the health insurance amendment bill and to that head act. I do think it is relevant to address it not only because of that but also because it was brought up and addressed at some length in a previous contribution, and apparently that was within the standing orders.
The member for Dickson, as I said, I did not see it. If the speaker did not take it up with the member for Dobell, I will actually go and view that. The difficulty I have is that if everybody bends the rules then I am left with no rules. Then I am—and every occupier of the chair is—put into an insidious position. But as the first Deputy Speaker—you have copped me, I am sorry—I actually have to set the benchmark a bit higher than the rest. I appreciate what you say. Latitude can happen in debate, but I think we are straying now and I would ask you to wind up if you are getting to that point.
I of course would not seek to cause you any distress. In conclusion, the coalition does support this bill. We do not support grubby attacks like that from the member for Dobell. We have highlighted the concerns in relation to this bill. We hope that the minister heeds the concerns of the industry and of patients. The coalition is about choice. We are about providing better patient outcomes. We are concerned that this is going to be yet another botched attempt by the Rudd government in relation to health. The Rudd government promises so much in relation to health, not just this bill but other measures, and, regrettably, on many occasions, just gets it wrong or simply cannot deliver. They are our reservations and we highlight them again. We support the thrust of the bill but we are concerned about yet another bungle by this minister.
I thank the member for Dickson for his assistance.
I thank all the members who have made valuable contributions in relation to this debate. Of course the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010 removes the legislative restriction that effectively requires a patient to take a request for a pathology service to the approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority named on the request in order for a Medicare benefit to be payable for the pathology service provided. This legislative change will allow patients to take a pathology request to an approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority of their choice and will encourage pathology providers to compete on price and convenience for patients. These amendments will take effect from July 2010. Of course doctors will be encouraged to continue to advise their patients on the best choice of pathology provider for their needs. I commend the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
I inform all honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 4 February, on motion by Mr Clare:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak in support of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2010. It is an important bill for a number of reasons. It will amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 and in so doing deliver real benefits to Indigenous students around Australia. By adjusting the 2010-12 financial appropriations to cover the cost of the Sporting Chance Program, the bill will make a significant contribution to closing the gap in education outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
By adjusting the 2010-12 financial appropriations to cover the cost of the Sporting Chance program, the bill will make a significant contribution to closing the gap in education outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia, I am acutely aware of the challenges Indigenous students face, particularly in rural and remote communities. That is why the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2010 is so important. We know that education is the pathway to opportunity and secure, well-paid jobs. But only a bit more than 47 per cent of Indigenous young people in 2006 got to year 12 or equivalent.
In 2008 the employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians aged 15 to 64 stood at around 21 per cent. This bill amends the act to include ongoing funding through the Sporting Chance program, a program which uses sport as a hook to engage Indigenous students in learning and, through the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, move from remote areas for post-secondary education and training. The funding provided under this bill will help ensure Indigenous students are supported to overcome barriers to education and deliver very real benefits to rural communities. It is absolutely essential that both sides of the parliament work together to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, to maximise educational opportunities and to ensure as many Indigenous students as possible complete their high school education. We need Indigenous people job ready, and education is a critical part of that process.
This is the first time that a government has recognised Indigenous disadvantage as a national problem which requires a targeted and measurable approach. This is a significant but necessary challenge. In November 2008 the government committed to reduce the gap in life expectancy and opportunities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. This will not be an easy task, but it is one that we as a government are determined to take on. One of the main reasons I stood for parliament was my belief that as a country we can overcome the very real social challenges in our Indigenous communities—and this is not restricted to education. Indigenous Australians have higher infant mortality rates and lower life expectancies, and higher levels of alcohol and substance abuse are prevalent amongst Indigenous communities. The Closing the Gap report 2010, released by the Prime Minister earlier this year, affirmed and underlined what we already knew: that the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous life expectancy at birth is almost 20 years—it is in fact 17 years.
Indigenous children in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory are almost four times more likely to die before they reach the age of five than non-Indigenous children. This is an absolute disgrace. The Closing the Gap report provides a framework to move forward. It has redefined the way we as a government approach the issues we face as Australians. As a government we will achieve a halving of the gap in literacy and numeracy within a decade. We will halve the gap in year 12 attainment or its equivalent by 2020. We are working towards this goal and making progress that this bill will ensure continues. This bill will complement the government’s other initiatives to close the gap in Indigenous education. Examples of our goals are to halve the gap for Indigenous students in reading, writing and numeracy before 2018, and by 2020 to have reduced by half the Indigenous young people aged between 20 and 24 years who have not completed year 12. As it stands today, the gap between the proportion of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students who complete secondary school is huge. In 2006 only 47.4 per cent of Indigenous young people got their year 12 equivalent. In 2008 the employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians aged 15 to 64 was 21 per cent.
Some of the most insightful programs to help young people both to stay at school and, by staying at school, become job ready, are the Clontarf programs. A program which I have become closely associated with in Western Australia is the Clontarf Girls Academy. I would like to read a couple of case studies, examples of young students who, in taking advantage of the sports based Clontarf program, have been not only to stay in school but, by staying in school, have been able to, firstly, perform better, but secondly, have a better opportunity at getting their lives on track. I will read the example here of someone who, in my case study, is anonymously ‘student A’. A year 11 student transferred to Clontarf from Kalgoorlie in the middle of the year.
A good program.
I know the member for Canning is a strong supporter of the Clontarf program, and has been for many years. He is acknowledged for his support for Clontarf by all of the members of the Clontarf organisation. It is a great credit to them that they have an advocate as strong as the member for Canning, but it also speaks volumes for him that he is, and has been over the years, such a strong supporter of Clontarf.
Very nice of you, thank you.
Despite having strict parents, this young woman still did not attend school on a consistent basis from the time that she had enrolled in the college. It was not until the school and the academy had discovered her talent for singing that her attendance improved. She was asked to sing at a number of school functions but was told that she had to be there to practice with the school teachers’ aide. Student A came every day in anticipation of the event and soaked up every opportunity to learn from her new singing tutor. Student A successfully performed at two school functions and continues to be at school everyday in preparation for year 12 in 2010. This is what Student A said:
Singing in front of people is a really big fear of mine, but I think practicing with Judy and being a bit more proud of myself made me a bit more confident. Singing at the Girls Academy Awards and Mass was a huge step for me. I was nervous on both days, but I think getting back a positive response from the audience definitely boosted my confidence more. It was a great experience for me and I enjoyed myself.
To have young Indigenous women reflecting that they not only enjoyed the experience at school but got from it greater pride and personal confidence speaks volumes for the way in which these programs work. I will read from case study B:
As the Girls Academy began interviewing for the Development Officer position earlier in the year, one of the candidates expressed her concern for a young relative of hers located in Cairns, Queensland. The young woman, aged 17 was not expected to graduate high school because she had disengaged the year before and become involved in drugs and alcohol. She loved to play basketball and it was widely known she was quite a talented young player.
She had a significant presence about her, but was not confident that she could make it to graduation for a wide range of reasons. With the help of Ricky, the Academy was able to negotiate the terms of her transfer from her previous high school and basketball club and got her started at the school in a the core curriculum available at the school.
Staff were not sure how city life would fit in with her, but she seemed to have a relatively stable home life to help her cope. It was first thought that this student did not have the capacity to communicate verbally as well as any other student. It was also thought that this student could not understand directions or written English beyond the age of 11 according to her carer.
As she progressed through her classes, the Academy continued to push her limits. She started to demonstrate a vast array of abilities in the classroom and in the sporting arena. While her punctuality and occasionally, attendance, was an issue, she continued to excel and soon became one of the most competent students in the school.
The young woman eventually graduated and has requested help from Academy staff to help her jump to the next chapter in her life. Here is an example of her writing as seen in her Academy journal in response to a guest speaker:
I thought the guest speaker spoke about a lot of important things in regards to our Indigenous mentality. She also addressed a few issues that we have here at school, such as the listening part. She was very inspirational and I really enjoyed her life stories, especially about the missions and the dreamtime.
I could go on with outstanding case studies that demonstrate the importance of the Clontarf Academy. I could go on with case studies that point to the importance of the work that Ricky Grace and Role Models does, but I do not need to do that. Suffice to say that these institutions are wonderful. They do a great job and it is appropriate that the government, through this initiative, supports these programs. It provides the right enduring mechanism to help get young Indigenous people job ready so that they can take up job opportunities such as those made available through Generation One through a whole range of companies, today. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2010. The bill amends the funding tables in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to include the additional $10.93 million allocated to the Sporting Chance program announced in the 2009-10 budget. There is no additional appropriation in this bill; it simply transfers $10.93 million from Appropriations Act (No. 1) to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 from 1 January 2010.
The Sporting Chance program is an initiative of the previous, coalition government, originally announced in the 2006-07 budget. The initial commitment was for $19.6 million over four years to 30 June 2010 to establish 20 sporting academies. This initiative was inspired by the Clontarf Foundation Football Academy, Western Australia, which was established in January 2000, and which my colleague the member for Canning has had so much to do with and has been so supportive of. In passing, I might say that the member for Canning has been praised not only by the opposition side of the House, as one might expect, but also by the parliamentary secretary, for his work with the Clontarf Foundation Football Academy and the great support he has given them.
I note that in December 2008, as part of the Rudd government’s Closing the Gap strategy to address Indigenous disadvantage, the government provided a further $10 million over four years to expand the former coalition government’s program. This continued support is a testimony to the success of the program. It is one initiative actually achieving its desired outcomes in engaging Indigenous boys and girls in school through involvement with sport.
The Sporting Chance program is delivering positive results for Indigenous students, particularly from remote and rural areas of Australia. I am pleased to note that the results collected in 2009 indicate attendance rates are starting to climb and are, on average, better than attendance rates for Indigenous students not involved in the program. What is equally pleasing to note is that more than half of the academy students were reported by the schools to be improving their academic performance and many were also reported to have made significant gains with respect to behaviour and self-esteem.
Without education, trying to excel in life on the whole, and obtain employment in Australia, is very difficult. It is a given that we must provide every Australian the best educational opportunities we can, but it is particularly important for young Indigenous people. No matter where you look around the globe, education remains the fundamental means to improving living standards and decreasing poverty. I cannot stand here today and say that I am proud when I read statistics which show Indigenous life expectancy in this country remains lower than average life expectancy in Australia. It is an issue we all remain concerned about and I know that those on both sides of the House would like to improve it.
While acknowledging that we have a long way to go to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, we certainly did make progress under the coalition government. Under the 11 years of the previous government, incremental progress occurred across all sectors of Indigenous education as a result of targeted federal government programs such as the one we are speaking about today in the House.
We know that Indigenous participation in the vocational and educational training area improved in all locations between 1996 and 2005, with much of this improvement occurring in remote areas. Indigenous higher education graduates also continued to have higher take-up rates into full-time employment. A notable contribution toward this improvement was the former coalition government’s funding towards tutorial assistance to help Indigenous students improve their literacy and numeracy.
But we still have a long way to go in improving literacy and numeracy. Trends show that Indigenous Australians fall behind the rest of the population when it comes to literacy and numeracy performance. Results from last year’s NAPLAN tests are mixed. Literacy and numeracy improvements for years 3, 5 and 7 have been countered by a decline for year 9. As the Centre for Independent Studies concluded this year in a major policy paper on Indigenous education, there is negligible improvement in student performance.
So, for a moment, let us talk about other markers of improvement. Recent reports tell us that Indigenous school retention rates from the start of high school to year 12 have risen from 30.7 per cent in 1995 to 46.5 per cent in 2008. Even with these signs of some improvement, what hope for an education does any child in this country have if we cannot even keep them in our school system? Needless to say, when it comes to Indigenous attendance in schools, there is still much to be done. We all know that the reality is that secondary education and training opportunities are limited for those living in remote communities. These young people need the extra support to become leaders, mentors and role models within their home communities.
A young Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person should and can be encouraged to undertake study or training opportunities and then return to their home town and contribute to their community through their improved knowledge, life or skill sets. I know that the member for Canning, who will make a contribution to this debate tonight, has a significant Aboriginal population and a significant interest in his electorate because of the basing of the Clontarf Foundation in Canning. I am sure he will have some success stories to share with the House and I am sure that he has seen such situations occur many times.
It is true that some of us in city seats do not see the real life examples day by day, but we do want to encourage those who are working amongst the communities. Some young people may never return to their home towns but still will create a sense of hope and opportunity for younger members of their community. This is what we need: role models who will demonstrate that education opens doors and enriches lives. There is a real need to expand on the opportunities so that Indigenous students can have these role models as their teachers and educators.
The government has made promises to Indigenous Australians through Closing the Gap, but it has failed to deliver on any real reform. But we certainly will not be opposing this bill. We want to continue supporting the work of those who are directly involved in this program. We need to give Indigenous students across our country the best possible access to quality education. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise tonight to speak in support of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2010. It is a bill that will make valuable and important amendments to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act, effectively providing scope for the improvement of education outcomes of Indigenous Australians. The bill will maintain commitments to initiatives introduced by the former government, including the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Sporting Chance Program. The bill will increase appropriations for non-Abstudy payments by $10.3 million between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2013. This funding is as a result of a 2009-10 budget measure, which provided an additional $10 million worth of funding over four years for the Sporting Chance Program. The government’s arrangements will see more funding flow to Indigenous students. The current forward estimates of Commonwealth funding for Indigenous education over 2009-12 total approximately $2.3 billion, some $200 million more than the estimated $2.1 billion announced by the former government prior to the commencement of the 2005-08 quadrennium.
The appropriations outlined in this bill will enable the Commonwealth to continue to exercise public leadership and maintain its dedicated support for localised initiatives which improve Indigenous education outcomes. This role includes collaboratively setting policy directions and priorities in Indigenous education, as well as engagement with stakeholders and investment in research and evidence in conjunction with states, territories and non-government education providers to support future reforms and systemic improvements in the education and training sectors for Indigenous Australians. The act has appropriated funding for two quadrenniums for the purpose of improving education outcomes for Indigenous Australians. The bill will transfer funding for the 2009-10 budget measure Closing the Gap Sporting Chance Program from the annual administered expense of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. This is necessary because funding under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act did not include the additional appropriation of these funds for this program. This will allow all funding for the program to be combined under the one act.
The new arrangements for supplement recurrent funding will provide states and other education providers with greater flexibility in how they use Commonwealth funding to address the needs of their Indigenous students. However, the bill will allow the Commonwealth to continue its national leadership role in Indigenous education through the retention of targeted initiatives as Commonwealth own purpose expenses. It should also be noted that funding for some initiatives appropriated under this bill is not evenly spread across the quadrennium. This may create the illusion that funding under the bill decreases in 2011 and 2012, but the reality is that both the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and Indigenous Youth Leadership Program finish their expansion phases and will see increasing numbers of participants completing from the end of 2010.
This bill is important for Indigenous Australians. It is an important step that will assist in closing the gap in education between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. The provision of this funding will allow improvements in Indigenous education outcomes. The Indigenous students of our country are at a severe disadvantage because of significant gaps between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous levels of literacy and numeracy skills, year 12 or equivalent attainment and employment outcomes. The funding in this bill aims at reducing these gaps through the programs that it will support.
There is certainly no denying the fact that there is a significant gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in education. Despite the fact that the majority of Indigenous students meet the minimum standards of reading, writing and numeracy, the success rate of them meeting this standard is far lower than the number of their non-Indigenous classmates that do so. The government is committed to ensuring that students from all backgrounds and all locations have a chance to access good education. The government is working with both government and non-government training providers to achieve numerous very important goals that will provide greater opportunities for Indigenous students. One of these goals is the halving of the gaps in literacy and numeracy achievement. The target is to halve each of the gaps in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 reading, writing and numeracy achievement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students by 2018. Other goals include halving the gaps in year 12 or equivalent attainment and also halving the gaps in employment outcome for Indigenous Australians.
The government and non-government training providers also aim to see every Indigenous four-year-old in remote communities have the opportunity to access an early learning program. This aim in particular is of critical importance to achieving the goals of halving the gaps, because, as with any endeavour, it is important that people get the best start and the best opportunities from the outset. By starting Indigenous people in remote communities on the path of learning at a young age we can provide them with the same chances of success that most young people receive, and encourage them to continue learning as they grow and develop. It will, in effect, significantly contribute to the achievement of the goals of halving the gaps.
The government has committed to establishing national collaborative arrangements that will assist us to collectively work towards these targets. However, the Commonwealth must maintain an ability to provide national leadership and perspectives to close the gaps. An important component of the plan to close the gaps is the Sporting Chance Program, which uses sport to engage Indigenous students and show the value of education, and $10 million dollars was committed to the program in the 2009-10 budget, with $5 million dollars directed towards establishing 10 new sports based academies, with a specific focus on improving the participation and engagement of girls, and $5 million going to the Former Origin Greats which will be used to establish academies that will focus on rugby league in Queensland and New South Wales.
Past evidence has shown that this program has been successful at achieving improvements and working effectively towards closing the gap. Under the Sporting Chance Program, improvements in attendance and considerable success in retaining students to the end of year 12 at the schools in which they have been operating have been achieved. Average attendance rates are climbing and the attendance rates of Indigenous students involved with the program are better on average than those of Indigenous students not involved with the program. This is quite significant and demonstrates the effectiveness of this program.
These facts also demonstrate why the program should continue and why the appropriation of funds for it is so important. The success that the Sporting Chance Program has achieved is substantial and it would be irrational to allow it to end. This bill will ensure it continues, helping to achieve the government’s goal of delivering better education outcomes for Indigenous students and closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous education outcomes. This bill amends the table in subsection 14B(1) of the act to include additional funding for the Sporting Chance Program. This will bring it into line with the Commonwealth’s suite of targeted assistance measures and adjust the 2010-12 appropriations agreed as part of the new federal financial relations framework.
By extending the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 we provide appropriations to continue our election commitments such as providing funding for additional teachers in the Northern Territory, and, in a bipartisan way, continue good programs introduced by the opposition such as the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Sporting Chance Program. This funding will also allow us to continue to work with Indigenous communities, philanthropic organisations, corporate leaders and national organisations to build the partnerships that are so critical to improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians. By amending the appropriations under the act the Australian government can continue working with a range of stakeholders to develop and implement innovative measures to close the gaps in reading, writing and numeracy achievement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students by 2018.
There is no denying the irrefutable fact that Indigenous students are at a severe disadvantage in comparison with their non-Indigenous peers. The statistics demonstrate this unmistakable fact. The government is committed to the goals of halving each of the 2008 gaps in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 reading, writing and numeracy achievement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students by 2018. The funding appropriated under this bill will go a long way towards helping achieve this goal, which is why this bill is of such importance. The government needs to ensure that Indigenous students are not forgotten. It is our duty and the government’s goal to work towards closing the gap that has for a long time created a huge difference between education outcomes and employment opportunities of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. This bill is a step towards achieving a closing of the gap and creating a higher level of equality, which is why I commend the bill to the House.
I am pleased to rise to speak this evening on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2010 for the main purpose of supporting, and bringing to the House’s attention, the tireless efforts of the Clontarf Football Academy, its programs and some of the magnificent outcomes that it achieves. As we have heard, this bill is procedural in nature, bipartisan and to include the additional $10.93 million allocated to the Sporting Chance Program in the 2009-10 budget. The Sporting Chance Program is an initiative of the previous coalition government that was originally announced in the 2006-07 budget. This program is one of the few initiatives actually achieving its desired outcomes of engaging both Indigenous boys and girls in school through involvement with sport. The principle is very simple. Through sport we encourage young children to stay at or to go back to school, in turn improving their employment prospects for the future and their all-round wellbeing for having done so. We have seen the value in using incentives to keep kids in schools, using sporting activities and high-profile sporting identities as a vehicle to increase the level of engagement of Indigenous students to improve their educational outcomes. Unlike the Labor government’s inaction on its closing the gap strategy, the Sporting Chance Program delivers real results and I am pleased to say it is one of the few programs that have continued relatively untouched.
In last night’s big taxing, big spending budget, the money allocated to the Sporting Chance Program through to 2012 was confirmed. In addition to the $22 million committed to the program in December 2008, the Prime Minister’s additional commitment of $10 million to Clontarf directly over four years, to expand the football academy, is the money we here are speaking about transferring today, which has essentially already been expended by Clontarf and they need more. At this stage I say that I was very grateful for the kind words spoken by the member for Brand, Gary Gray, in relation to my association with the Clontarf Football Academy and this program generally. I say, on behalf of the member for Brand, that he also needs to be recognised as a new champion in this government, given his tireless work for and on behalf of this program, of the Aboriginal football program at Clontarf. Obviously, we in opposition do not have the same ability to necessarily get the message through to the government of the day. The member for Brand has taken that up and, as a champion of this program in Western Australia, he has seen that those involved have had access to the highest levels of government, which include the Prime Minister. I know that we are not meant to hold up things in the House, but as this is about the Prime Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, I am sure you will not mind! What I am holding up is about the Prime Minister attending Clontarf in Perth last year, announcing the $10 million program over the four-year period, which was very much welcomed. That had a lot to do with the member for Brand making sure, as I suspect, that every member of the cabinet up to the level of Prime Minister appreciated what was going on at Clontarf. That was well done. It is good to see we are all working to the same ends.
In the short period of time that I have left I will talk about Clontarf, but hopefully I will continue on this at a later date. As I said, the Clontarf Football Academy uses sport as a means of ensuring young Indigenous boys get an education. When it was first rolled out, people said, ‘But why is it only for boys? How come there’s not much for girls in this program?’ Gerard Neesham’s view of that, and it might sound a bit unusual to some, is that where the boys are the girls will be. That is true of this program. They provide the sporting program for the boys to play football, because that is the great hook to get them to school, and we know how good Indigenous boys in this country are at Australian Rules football. It seems to come to them so easily. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Can I remind everybody that phones are not to ring in the chamber.
The fact is that while providing the program for the boys in this instance they also provide programs for the girls at the same academy on the Clontarf campus. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Take it out or you might be following it!
Yes. I have only a couple of seconds to go. I need to compose myself. It has been said that a lot of these boys do not actually proceed to a high level in football. I can tell you that many of the boys that have been in this program have been drafted at the AFL level. This template that Gerard Neesham uses could be transferred to other sports, and I am sure it has been to rugby. It is a very good template which could also be transferred to the sports that girls are involved in. As a result, it needs a huge amount of funding.
In the time left I would like to give you a bit of history about this. Gerard Neesham went to Graylands Teachers College with me many years ago. He reached a high level in football. He played for the Sydney Swans and, as we know, he was the inaugural coach of the Fremantle Dockers. Once he had finished coaching the Dockers, he had been looking for another direction in life and he went to teach Indigenous kids at Clontarf. At that stage they did not have a football program so he decided that it would be an opportune time to introduce role models in a program, because obviously he himself was a very good role model having been an achiever at such a high level in sport. As he says to me, ‘Don, when you go all throughout the deserts of outback Australia you see that one thing that combines the Indigenous people is their love of Australian Rules football. They can all tell you who played in the grand final for Carlton several years or who won the Brownlow Medal and in what year. They wear their colours and their football beanies.’ He saw that as a unifying opportunity in education to get the kids to school. When I return to this speech, hopefully some time later, I will be able to tell members about the retention rates, how the program is spread out, how it is funded, why it is such a necessary program into the future and why all forms of government, both federal and state, and businesses need to continue their support.
Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Last Monday, 3 May, I attended a forum hosted by the East Metropolitan Regional Council to discuss putting the Perth-Darwin Highway and, more particularly, the Swan Valley bypass section of that highway on the Western Australian and national agendas. The forum was organised by the East Metropolitan Regional Council’s Director of Regional Services, Rhonda Hardy, and her staff. It was well supported by local and state governments, community action groups, progress associations and road transport organisations. All agreed that construction of the Perth-Darwin National Highway bypass is essential to advance individual safety, to safeguard the integrity of the Swan Valley and to ensure the efficient transport of goods. All who attended the forum agree that this project is urgently needed and will require a concerted effort by all parties to get it started.
Since my election to federal parliament in 1993, national highways in Pearce have been a major focus of my work, and none is more important than this bypass. I have made numerous representations to government over the years and continue to get the answer that it is 10 to 20 years away. Initially, there was some community disagreement about the route it would take, but this argument has long been settled and it is unacceptable for the public to continue to be told that the project is still years away from commencement—indeed, on the never-never plan.
While the state government needs to give this work priority, the federal government provides the funding for highways of national importance, such as the Perth-Darwin National Highway. There was nothing in the budget delivered by the government last night to reassure the people of Pearce that this project will be funded any time soon. In fact, despite the public statements by the government that a third or $3 billion of the $9 billion to be raised annually by the application of a royalty tax on the mining industry for infrastructure, only $700 million appears to have been allocated in the budget papers for infrastructure in 2012-13. This is a mere drop in the ocean when considered on a national scale and is unlikely to fund even one major project such as the Perth-Darwin bypass. I know that there are many competing projects nationally.
The funding of the bypass is critical because the southern end of the Great Eastern Highway is currently the major arterial road carrying goods between the eastern states, the airport, the port of Fremantle and the rapidly expanding development of the north-west of Western Australia. This route carries heavy haulage trucks and general traffic through the heart of the beautiful Swan Valley. This is the oldest wine growing region in Western Australia. It has great heritage value and it is a major tourist precinct, just 20 minutes from airport.
The current road, although being upgraded, was never meant to carry heavy traffic, including extra long and extra wide haulage vehicles. They are using this stretch of road in vastly increasing numbers. In fact, 4,744 heavy haulage vehicles now take this route Monday to Friday, and it does not take much imagination to realise that this number will increase hugely as the new north-west projects come on stream. These are just the big, heavy haulage trucks—that is, double- and triple-load and wide-load trucks. That number does not take into account other trucking movements on the road or the vast amount of domestic traffic, including tourist traffic, that travels to the Swan Valley and beyond into the great north-west of Western Australia.
In 2011, work will commence on the giant $4 billion Oakajee Port and Rail project, which will in time include a 1,134 hectare industrial estate. The billions of dollars of raw materials, building supplies and equipment necessary to complete this infrastructure will largely be transported on the Great Northern Highway. Further into the future is the Browse Basin LNG project—a giant project—which will provide impetus for rapid growth and development of the north-west, thereby putting further pressure on the highway.
Work on this highway and, in particular, the bypass needs to be scheduled and funded without further delay. I call on the federal government to ensure on behalf of the people of Pearce and other road users that, if they are going to tax the mining sector, they stick to their public statement about delivering a third of the $9 billion tax to infrastructure and allocate some of that to the Swan Valley bypass and the Perth-Darwin National Highway immediately. I thank Mayor Charlie Gregorini, and his crew in the City of Swan for their advocacy for this bypass and congratulate Rhonda Hardy for her initiative. (Time expired)
I rise to speak about the importance of choosing Fairtrade certified products for our homes and workplaces around Australia, including the Australian Parliament House. World Fair Trade Day was held on 8 May 2010. It was a fantastic day to raise awareness about how a small choice that we can make can mean big changes for some of the world’s most impoverished and vulnerable people.
World Fair Trade Day and Fair Trade Fortnight are events which aim to encourage people to make the switch from conventional products to ones bearing the Fairtrade certified logo, which indicates that agreed labour, environmental, and developmental standards have been met. Organisations like the Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand, along with Oxfam Australia, World Vision, Uniting Care and many others have all been working hard to help people make the connection between poverty, human rights, and fair trade.
Many Australians do not realise that some of the big brands of coffee, tea, sugar and chocolate that they see on supermarket shelves use suppliers who pay unfairly low prices to producers. This means that communities are driven into poverty and cannot afford basic amenities and services, including housing, education and health care. Fairtrade certified standards guarantee a minimum price to coffee growers and add a Fairtrade premium which goes towards local development and environmental sustainability, ensuring basic health care and education is available to local communities.
I was very concerned to hear that forced child labour is widely used on coffee, tea, sugar and cocoa plantations and that children as young as five-years-old are forced to perform backbreaking labour for many hours a day under extremely brutal conditions. These children are exposed to hazards on a daily basis, including injuries from heavy machinery, poisoning from pesticides from which they are given no protective equipment and beatings and torture from the plantation bosses. Most importantly, they are denied their basic right to education. This compounds and reinforces the poverty cycle. They have no access to health care, no freedom and no rights.
Last year the US Department of Labor released a report entitled The Department of Labor’s list of goods produced by child labor or forced labor, which details the origins of products made with child labour. The report reveals that there are four countries where child labour is used to produce tea, five where it is used to produce cocoa, twelve where it is used to produce coffee and an astonishing fourteen countries where it is used to produce sugar.
This data along with the information I received from campaigns run by World Fair Trade Day recently helped convince me to make the switch in my own office. All the coffee, tea, sugar and drinking chocolate in my electorate office is now Fairtrade certified, and we promote this fact to our constituents and within the office. I am proud to say that as a result my electorate office has now been awarded fair trade workplace status by the Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand.
Fairtrade certified products not only ensure fair prices and environmental sustainability but also prohibit child labour and sanction companies who are found to be breaking the rules. We know that Fairtrade is already working to help address these fundamental issues of human rights and poverty. More than five million people across 58 countries are already benefiting from the improvements Fairtrade brings.
While I am proud to have a fair trade workplace at my electorate office and am encouraged by this good news, I also feel that there is a fantastic opportunity now for other workplaces to make that switch. As leaders we have a responsibility to set an example for the community with our values, as Australians we have a responsibility to assist those people far less fortunate than us in developing countries and as consumers each and every one of us—at home or at work, whether we are at the supermarket, at our local cafe or buying for our workplace—have the opportunity to help make poverty history just by looking for the blue and green Fairtrade certified logo before we buy.
That is why I am going to write to each member and senator. In the coming weeks they will receive a letter from me asking them to choose Fairtrade certified products for their electorate offices and to support the campaign to make the big switch here in Australian Parliament House. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that to kick off the campaign in February this year I wrote to you and to the President of the Senate asking both of you to make the switch throughout Parliament House. I am eagerly awaiting your responses, which, I am told, are on their way. I note the previous commitments of various members and senators from both sides of the House and encourage all of them to make the change.
Last month I participated in the Relay for Life walk, which supports the Cancer Care Council every year as a fundraising event. It was the biggest turnout they had had so far. As you can imagine, this really pleased the organisers, and over $200,000 was raised. Each team had to walk the circuit of the Nowra sports oval for 24 hours, and I am pleased to report that the team of which I was a member was called the Plodding Pollies, made up of local politicians and their staff, families and friends.
To remind each participant why they were there, the circuit of the walk was dotted by hundreds of A4-sized epitaphs to family and friends who have succumbed to cancer. Each sheet carried its own personal message written by a surviving friend or family member in its own unique style and with special embellishments.
Those who had passed on ranged from the very young to the very old. Cancer does not discriminate. The simplicity of each message saddened me. It affected me that someone so loved was taken away prematurely. It was sad because perhaps the person who had written the message had only been able to stand helplessly by, unable to do anything.
Each of us, I am sure, has been touched by cancer in some way. Whether your experience of cancer relates to yourself, a family member, a friend or a colleague, once you have lived it, you do not want to repeat the experience.
That is why earlier this year I wrote to the Minister for Health and Ageing on behalf of a constituent of mine who is within reach of help but is simply waiting for a signature on a bit of paper. John Beauchamp of Orient Point is suffering from a form of leukaemia known as myelodysplasia. As a result of this condition he developed a rare blood disorder called PNH, requiring treatment with the drug soliris, which was recommended for inclusion in the federal government’s Life Saving Drugs Program over a year ago.
On 9 February, I was contacted by the department which informed me that the government is taking the necessary steps to see that this drug is included on the LSDP. May has now arrived and Mr Beauchamp’s life is seriously at risk, so I again wrote to get an update on where the matter rests, reiterating the need for urgency.
Perhaps simply saying that Mr Beauchamp has a rare form of leukemia called myelodysplasia is not sufficient and I should elaborate. The condition leads to blood clots in the body and kidney failure. It destroys red blood cells, reduces the amount of white blood cells in his body, which are necessary for fighting infection as well as reducing platelet levels. He has been getting blood transfusions twice a week and cannot work. Slowly but surely his quality of life is being diminished on so many levels. He has had to give up work because he is chronically tired and is now facing the prospect of selling his home to pay for very expensive medical treatment.
Soliris can help Mr Beauchamp, but at the moment it is out of his reach. Soliris was once available for free by the manufacturer Alexion to a number of patients, and, although this had stopped by the time Mr Beauchamp was diagnosed, I commend Alexion on its charity and compassion. The minister only needs to sign off on the recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which said that it should be included in the program.
Mr Beauchamp is physically very weakened. An attack of the flu could well mean a death sentence for him. I really do not know what is holding up the decision, but it would seem that if the drug were capable of being supplied by the company free of charge in a limited distribution then possibly the clinical criteria have already been satisfied.
Mr Beauchamp himself has discussed this with fellow sufferers who have all reported remarkable results. They have gone from two transfusions every week to one in eight months. Some have already returned to work and are making plans for a new future. No wonder John is waiting anxiously at the minister’s pleasure for his lifeline.
The local newspaper is also very supportive, and I thank Glenn Ellard who wrote the piece that I sent to the minister with my latest letter. I have repeated some of Glenn’s comments in this statement in the hope that they will reinforce the story in the mind of the minister. Next year, when I again go into the Relay for Life, a 24-hour relay, I do not want to be reading John’s epitaph on one of the hundreds of pieces of A4 lining the Nowra Showground oval.
John’s case is symbolic of all those others throughout Australia waiting for the minister to grant them reprieve from their death sentence. I appeal to the minister to move with the utmost urgency to approve this drug for John Beauchamp and others like him before it is too late.
This evening I speak again about aircraft noise and the aviation white paper, Flight path to the future, released in December last year by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Anthony Albanese. Mr Speaker, as you know, I have raised on many occasions the concerns of my constituents about the impact of aircraft noise in Sydney’s inner west. The constituents of Lowe suffered for many years under the Howard government’s indifference to the effects of the aviation industry and activity at Sydney Airport. As I have mentioned previously in this House, and as you know, the Howard government sold Sydney Airport without any community consultation or real concern to properly and fairly address aircraft noise. Further, the Howard government concealed during the last federal election campaign its negotiations with Sydney Airport to close the east-west runway for upgrades. The people I represent were affected by the safety upgrade of the runway and I note that several constituents contacted me to convey their displeasure about the level of noise and the frequency of flights over their homes during the period of the closure.
Once elected, the Rudd government moved to immediately impose 22 stringent conditions on the project to minimise the impact on our communities. I am pleased to note that the east-west runway is now fully operational following the completion of the Runway End Safety Area project. All three runways are now compliant with international safety standards and Airservices Australia must now ensure fair noise sharing.
Only yesterday I spoke with a constituent who lives in Drummoyne in my electorate who is very concerned about very noisy aircraft flying over her home up to 20 minutes before the expiration of the morning curfew. She expressed to me her concerns that the curfew was at risk. However, I was able to reassure her that the government has reaffirmed its commitment to maintain the existing curfew and the 80 movements per hour cap on flights. In fact, in May 2009, Jetstar was fined $148,500 for breaching the curfew at Sydney Airport for a flight that departed at 11.30 pm after its application for curfew dispensation was refused. Jetstar was the first Australian airline to be prosecuted and fined for breaching the curfew—and so it should have been. It is imperative that residents affected by aircraft noise are provided respite through the curfew. Noncompliance with the curfew by airlines, unless under exceptional circumstances, is unacceptable and the government remains committed to maintaining the existing curfew for the benefit of all communities.
Further to the commitment to maintain the curfew and cap on flights, our government announced several measures to improve community consultation and planning in the aviation white paper. Flight path to the future is Australia’s first national aviation policy white paper and outlines the long-term framework for all aspects of aviation in Australia, including economic development, safety and security, future airport planning and sustainability. I applaud the minister for his vision and for undertaking the extensive consultation to develop the white paper. The white paper makes clear commitments to the millions of people using the airports and, very importantly, to the communities affected by aviation activity. Measures include establishing an aircraft noise ombudsman to improve the dissemination of information to affected communities and conduct an independent review of noise complaints handling. I note that my local community campaigned for an aircraft ombudsman and collected hundreds of signatures. I am extremely pleased that the minister is listening and responding to the calls of our constituents, and I certainly know he understands the issue because his electorate, like mine, is affected severely.
Further, the minister will phase out older and noisier aircraft flying over residential areas. In addition, the minister has outlined our government’s commitment to find a site for a second Sydney Airport to meet additional aviation capacity. The minister has established a planning task force with the New South Wales government to identify strategies and locations for the second airport.
I am heartened by available Airservices Australia reports that show a very gradual decline in aircraft noise over my electorate for the year to date. This is not to say that the current levels are acceptable—they are not acceptable. Indeed, I will be monitoring closely the reports of Airservices Australia, the reasons for any breaches of the curfew as well as the long-term operating plan targets for each month, to ensure we minimise the impact of aircraft noise on affected residents in my electorate of Lowe. Mr Speaker, as you know, my constituents have suffered enough.
I would like to speak about one of the top priorities for real action in the electorate of Boothby. Over the last 13 years, residents of Belair in the electorate of Boothby have faced two major bushfires, posing a real threat to lives and homes. Woody weeds, in particular feral olives, which are widespread in the Mitcham Hills, have been identified as a major fire hazard, with olives being highly flammable. As a key bushfire prevention strategy, the local country fire service and Mitcham Council are committed to olive tree eradication. They are to be commended for their efforts in reducing fuel loads through the clearing of olives, with Mitcham Council investing approximately $300,000 per annum to this cause.
Last week, the Leader of the Opposition and I met with the Mayor of Mitcham, Ivan Brooks, the local country fire service and local residents at a site in Belair which was partially cleared of olive trees. We heard and saw firsthand the difficulties facing the local community, firefighters and council workers. We observed the work involved in removing an olive tree.
The Mediterranean climate, with its mild winter temperatures and hot summers, of the Mitcham Hills makes the area prone to olive infestation. Controlling and minimising the spread of these weeds is a difficult task and it is too big a job for the local council and the local community to manage. As a result direct action is required. What is required is more funding and support if we are to have any hope of improving the situation for the local community and preserving the natural environment for our children in the future. There is a twofold priority here: revegetation of bushland but also reduction of the fire risk. Intensive labour is required if we are to make an impact on areas of major environmental degradation and ensure the preservation of wilderness areas.
Earlier this year, in January, the Leader of the Opposition announced that, if a coalition government were elected, a strong environmental workforce would be established—a standing green army. This green army would comprise 15,000 members. It would be available on an ongoing basis and supplemented by volunteers to tackle the local and regional environmental priorities that most urgently need a sustained application of labour.
In my electorate, the council, working with about six workers, has made a real impact in Brown Hill Creek. They have made an impact starting from the top of the hill’s face and working down in restoring bushland to its original state and reducing these very hardy olives. But there is much more that needs to be done, and a green army of 15,000 members spread across 150 electorates would mean 100 people in each electorate being available to work on local environmental projects. So if a Liberal-National Party government is elected then I will be pushing hard to see that one of the first weed eradication projects for the green army will be in the bushland of the Mitcham Hills. The Mitcham council is making a good fist of this, but they need reinforcements, and that is where I see the green army coming in.
We had an indication this week from the Leader of the Opposition, ‘the member for Manly’, the Hon. Tony Abbott, that he was going to betray his Jesuit roots when he indicated that he was going to block our attempts to change the superannuation guarantee increase from nine per cent to 12 per cent. In a religious upbringing that talked about fairness for all and giving people opportunities, this would be one of the greatest sins that the ‘member for Manly’ could commit, if he were in fact to cut off our chances to increase the SGC.
As a member of the Howard government, Mr Abbott neglected infrastructure for nearly 12 years. He has shown time and time again that he does not take economics seriously and, in that, I could perhaps understand why he fundamentally does not get it about superannuation and how important it is for ordinary Australians. Not those people on a defined benefit scheme or a pension scheme like members elected to the federal parliament before 2004—
Mr Coulton interjecting
I take the interjection from the member for Parkes. It is not that sort of thing, but for ordinary Australians superannuation is incredibly important. I am talking about ordinary Australians, not those on federal MPs wages. I did note that the ‘member for Manly’ complained about that. When the world was tightening its belt, he said that we too should tighten our belts. It would be a bit hypocritical for politicians to talk about belt tightening if we did not actually do something ourselves. Mr Abbott was saying: ‘Oh no, we shouldn’t do that. MPs are just like ordinary Australians.’ The reality is that our wages are much higher than most Australians.
Superannuation is incredibly important. I know the battles that went on way back in the nineties with the Hawke government and with Paul Keating as Treasurer. When we brought in this superannuation there was the trade-off for the three per cent wage increase. But since then the superannuation industry has taken off and the latest figures I have, from June 2007, show that Australia’s superannuation assets back in June 2007 were $1,153.3 billion—that is, about $1 trillion or 119 per cent of the GDP as it was back in June 2007. Obviously it would have increased since then.
The Labor government gets superannuation. We understand superannuation. We understand how important it is. So, for the coalition to stand against this government’s reforms to increase the superannuation guarantee and the incentives for lower income earners and those nearing retirement age would be reprehensible. Maybe those opposite just do not get it? Maybe they just do not understand compulsory superannuation? Because it would be Australians on lower incomes who would miss out, the people who have been given a great opportunity to save and invest for their own retirement. So that means the coalition is now the greatest risk to Australia’s national superannuation savings.
I will give you a couple of examples. If you are an 18-year-old—I know that is not that long ago for you, Mr Speaker—who entered the workforce today on average earnings, you would be $200,000 worse off when you retired. So, young people, the people voting for the first time at the next election, cannot risk their future savings on the coalition—on the Leader of the Opposition. Or, if you are an employee aged 30 today—which is closer to the age of the member for Rankin—on the average full-time weekly earnings, you would retire with $108,000 less in superannuation. If you are a female aged 30 today on average weekly earnings with an interrupted work pattern, you would retire with nearly $80,000 less in your superannuation kit. Young families cannot afford to risk their future savings on the coalition.
If the coalition blocks this reform package, it will mean that 3.5 million Australians on lower incomes will continue to receive little or no concession on their compulsory superannuation contributions. If they take this reckless approach and block these reforms, it will mean 8.4 million Australians will not receive an increase in their retirement incomes. The 275,000 individuals who would benefit from a higher concessional contributions cap will not be able to make additional savings for their retirement when they are most able. And the 33,000 employees aged 70 to 74 will continue to miss out on superannuation guarantee contributions while they are working. I will not say who in the House would be closer to those ages, Mr Speaker. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
The following notices were given:
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, and for other purposes.
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Integrated fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at 12-26 Franklin St, Adelaide, South Australia.
Today I would like to formally present a petition of 26 signatures by doctors, mainly, and people around Warrnambool who are very keen to see an MRI licence granted in Warrnambool. We have reached the point where it seems almost ridiculous that the minister continues to procrastinate on the granting of an MRI licence in Warrnambool, despite a number of delegations to talk with her. The point is that there is no MRI machine between Ballarat, Geelong and Adelaide, so the whole of western Victoria and south-eastern South Australia does not have an MRI machine. When you look at the fact that there are MRI machines in Gippsland and in other regional areas in south-eastern Australia, you see that the time really has come to have one put in Warrnambool. We already have two extremely competent oncologists in Warrnambool, both of whom would find an MRI machine greatly advantageous, as would patients in the region who would no longer have to travel at great expense to have an MRI scan. At the moment, patients have to put up with a CT scan, which, while a very good diagnostic tool, if used too often can cause a lot of problems due to high radiation.
This petition for an MRI machine is just the first step in getting a cancer treatment centre in Warrnambool. We have a very active group running Peter’s Project, led by Vicki Jellie, whose husband recently tragically died of cancer. The whole community is right behind this push. This petition for the MRI machine was started by Dan Tehan, the Liberal candidate for the seat of Wannon, who is working extremely hard for the area. I am very confident that, given the effort he is making, he should be successful at the next election. At the same time, it shows that he is very much in touch with local issues. The fact that we do not have an MRI machine in Warrnambool, I think, is a scandal. I urge the minister to reconsider and not continue to procrastinate, and to recognise that an MRI machine is a very valuable part of diagnostics in modern medicine. For people who are already suffering, who have to be put in an ambulance or be driven by their family or whomever all the way to Ballarat or Geelong to get an MRI scan, it seems quite unreasonable in this day and age. We are talking of a region with over 100,000 people who would benefit. Given we already have oncologists, I urged the minister to take notice of this petition and I commend Dan Tehan for the work he has done.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives
This petition from certain doctors practicing in Western and South Western Victoria and other citizens of Wannon draws to the attention of the House the decision of the Rudd Government not to grant the Warrnambool Hospital a Magnetic Resonance Imaging licence depriving it of the ability to begin the process of establishing a radiotherapy unit for South West and Western Victoria.
We therefore ask the House to call on the Rudd Government to immediately reverse its decision and grant Warrnambool Hospital a Magnetic Resonance Imaging licence.
from 26 citizens
Petition received.
I want to congratulate my home city of Ipswich on the 150th anniversary of being proclaimed a municipality. I congratulate the Ipswich City Council for its commemorative council meeting on 12 April 2010. Ipswich is the oldest provincial municipality in Queensland. It could and should have been the capital of Queensland. Long before Europeans arrived, the Ipswich area was home to the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul clans, who managed the land and waters in a sustainable and reverent way.
Explorers John Oxley, Allan Cunningham and Lieutenant Butler first spotted the mouth of the Bremer River on a trip up the Brisbane River in September 1824. John Oxley is thought to have named the Bremer River in honour of Admiral Sir John Bremer, who sailed the HMS Tamar to northern Australia and established a settlement at Port Essington. Ipswich was first called Limestone Station by Captain Patrick Logan who discovered hills of limestone during a trip up the Bremer River in 1827. A team of convicts were then sent out to begin work at Limestone Hill. There are recorded conflicts between the Aboriginal clans of the area and the new arrivals.
Ipswich was named by Governor George Gipps, who was the Governor of New South Wales. The first town plan of Ipswich was drawn up by surveyor Henry Wade in 1842 and clearly showed that ‘Ipswich’ was to be the name for the new city. In 1860, after Queensland became a colony, Ipswich was proclaimed a municipality with a population of 3,000 people. The local industries included cotton, sugar, dairy farming, vineyards, woollen mills and coalmining. On a walk through the city centre at that time, you would have seen tailors, blacksmiths, milliners, watchmakers, grocers, cobblers, saddlers, coachbuilders and candle and soap makers. The 1880s saw coalmining grow to a significant industry in Ipswich, attracting migrants from England and Wales to join German migrants who settled in the Ipswich and West Moreton area. Steam engines were used in boats, trains, mills and works and needed coal as fuel. Coalmines were located in suburbs like Blackstone, Dinmore, New Chum, Goodna, Redbank, Collingwood Park and many other places.
Ipswich was the birthplace of rail in Queensland. The first line was launched in 1865, and it ran between Ipswich and Grandchester. As far back as 1914 the railway workshops employed 1,500 workers. The population has ebbed and flowed, but Ipswich has grown and in 2010 it covers 1,090 square kilometres and has 6,000 heritage sites. It is the fastest-growing area in Queensland—with five per cent population growth, 166,000 people, 115 different ethnic backgrounds and 84 languages. It is a fast-growing area. Congratulations to Ipswich on its sesquicentenary.
I rise to speak on health and hospitals in my region, particularly in my local area of the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. Blue Mountains residents already travel great distances for essential health services and specialist care, but they could be forced to travel even further under the Rudd Labor government’s health proposal based on casemix funding. The media has now joined with the coalition to hold the government to account on its health standards, after the Sun Herald released its own MyHospital website last week with data compiled from the New South Wales Health Services Comparison Data Book 2007/2008. This is the most recent complete annual data available on all New South Wales hospitals. Results on the MyHospital website clearly show that services to Blue Mountains residents are below the service targets set by the Labor government in New South Wales. If Labor cannot get it right from Sydney, how can they get it right from Canberra?
The Blue Mountains District ANZAC Memorial Hospital in Katoomba is recorded as having only 64 per cent of imminently life-threatening cases seen by a doctor within 10 minutes, but the government’s benchmark is a minimum of 80 per cent. This means that the Blue Mountains hospital is coming in 16 per cent below the government’s acceptable target. As a comparison, the Hawkesbury District Health Service, which is in the same district group 1C1 class as the Blue Mountains hospital, comes in at 96 per cent in the same category. In the category of percentage of potentially life-threatening cases seen by a doctor within 30 minutes—for which the government’s target is 75 per cent—it is bad news again for Blue Mountains residents. Yet again, the hospital comes in at 67 per cent when the Hawkesbury District Health Service—in the same class—weighs in at 96 per cent.
For the last 30 months, Kevin Rudd has flown around Australia talking about health reforms. In the last six weeks, Mr Rudd has continued talking but has not been able to say said exactly when, where or how these reforms will be delivered. Despite this, Blue Mountains residents remain no better informed as to how the government’s so-called health reforms are going to improve local access to services and specialists or how many extra doctors, nurses and aged-care places will be provided under the Rudd Labor government in the Blue Mountains area.
Labor’s health plan will be no different from their bungled BER and insulation programs. State Labor have proven through the absolutely disastrous BER program that they cannot be trusted to wisely spend Commonwealth money on school halls. There are local examples in the Blue Mountains of wasted government money in this program. Quite simply, how can we trust state Labor to spend money for people’s health needs now when they have failed so dismally over the last 15 years in New South Wales alone? Why is the Prime Minister going to trust New South Wales Labor with health money when most New South Wales residents and especially those in the Blue Mountains do not trust state Labor with their health care? The government must come out and explain to Blue Mountains residents how their so-called health reforms are going to improve services to their hospital. I am calling on the government to commit to improving health services access and delivery to the people of the Blue Mountains.
In recent months the streets of East Geelong have been dotted with the macabre sight of dead bats hanging from above, the victims of encounters with power lines. Over the summer the population of bats in Eastern Park has skyrocketed. As the arrival of the bats in Geelong has become a local water cooler topic, next door to Eastern Park is an institution which is taking a far more serious interest in bats. My bedroom window frames a local landmark. It is the large water tower of the Australian Animal Health Laboratory, otherwise known as AAHL. For the virologists at AAHL, it is all about bats.
It appears that many deadly diseases, including the Hendra virus and the SARS virus, have their roots in bats. Why bats in particular seem to cook up these viruses is the question on the lips of the scientists of AAHL. An even bigger question is: what is it about bats which means that they appear totally unaffected by the viruses? Bats may be the issue of the day, but they are just part of the work undertaken by this low-profile facility which represents the primary weapon against exotic and emerging animal diseases.
AAHL is Australia’s most secure facility and is the best in the world for the handling and containment of diseases. It has kept us free of foot-and-mouth disease, mad cow disease, scrapie and many fish diseases that could threaten the nation’s economic health. The language used to describe the science carried out at AAHL is military: early response, front line, rapid detection tools, disease countermeasures. That is because AAHL is to biosecurity what our Defence Force is to national security. It is a place where diseases can be safely studied and understood and responses developed to manage some of the deadliest disease threats of our time.
Three years ago horse flu nearly crippled the nation’s horse industry. AAHL was critical in the national response that quarantined and eradicated that disease from our horse population. We now know that three-quarters of new diseases in people can be traced back to animals. This was the case with the deadly Hendra virus that killed horse trainer Vic Rail back in 1994. Scientists at AAHL were the first to identify Hendra and today continue their work to develop a vaccine and treatment. To give some idea of the growing demand for its expertise, the number of individual diagnostic tests AAHL receives has grown 900 per cent in 10 years.
This year AAHL celebrated its 25th birthday. On the very day of its birthday, I had the great privilege of touring the facility. It is indeed impressive—more than 2,000 precast concrete wall panels, over 500 airtight doors, 62 air-handling systems and 1,000 high-efficiency air filters. To rebuild it today would cost $650 million, more than four times the money spent on construction in the early 1980s. In recent years, the Australian government has spent $55 million on AAHL, ensuring that it remains the pre-eminent facility of its kind in the world. The 300 people who work at AAHL may not wear army fatigues, but, as they handle the deadliest diseases known to humanity each and every day, the work they do is indeed heroic and just as fundamental to defending our country.
Last month the Dandenong Jobs Expo was held at the new general merchandise hall of the recently renovated Dandenong Market. It was the first time that the market had been used for a non-market use, and I thank the City of Greater Dandenong Council for making it available. It is an unfortunate fact that, in times of financial uncertainty, unemployment in areas like Dandenong goes up to a higher level than the national average.
The Dandenong area—and, in particular, suburbs like Dandenong South, Braeside and Carrum Downs—provides a significant chunk of Victoria’s and the country’s manufacturing output. So, when times are tough, manufacturing, retail and hospitality jobs in this area are often the first to go. That is why Centrelink hosted the Dandenong Jobs Expo on 15 April, when more than 120 local businesses and organisations from Melbourne’s south-east gathered to employ more than 800 people. It was the 10th jobs expo held nationally and the most successful in both turnout and jobs created.
It was great to have the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment, Jason Clare, and the Mayor of the City of Greater Dandenong, Councillor Jim Memeti, there with me to see just how enthusiastic the Dandenong region is to provide employment. Major local companies like Jayco, Myer and Ventura Bus Lines were there offering employment, and I must recognise the hard work of the local jobs coordinator, Keith Pimblett, for his role in attracting local businesses to the expo.
While the opposition are out there with hollow talk about taking action, this government is serious about actually doing something to get Australians back into work. Representing an area that has higher than average unemployment, I am proud that the Rudd government has been decisive and unapologetic in its priorities since the global financial crisis hit in late 2008: protect Australian jobs and keep unemployment down as low as possible. This government took early and decisive action to promote spending in retail and hospitality with the one-off cash payment bonus payments in December 2008 and early 2009, which helped keep employment up and going in these vulnerable sectors.
Then we announced and have implemented the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which has brought important community infrastructure like the complete redevelopment of the Noble Park pool and the construction of the Kingston Heath regional soccer facility, both of which are boons to their respective local communities and for local jobs. Every school in my electorate has received extra maintenance funding under the National School Pride program, and every primary school has new classrooms, a new library or a new hall. I have visited many of the schools in my electorate to see how construction is going, and the principals and parents are excited. Many of the workers have told me that if it were not for this funding program they would not have a job. The opposition leader wants to take away the projects promised to local schools under the third round of the Building the Education Revolution program and the jobs that go with it. As I have previously done in this place, I invite the opposition leader to my electorate to tell the principals, parents and teachers at schools like Noble Park Primary School, Wallarano Primary School, Parktone Primary School and the Chelsea Primary School exactly why, if elected, he would try and take away their important infrastructure projects. There is a stark difference between the Rudd government and the coalition on this issue. We are for jobs and those opposite are not. (Time expired)
Thank you, Madam Speaker Burke, and the time expired of the Rudd government is coming soon, too.
I rise today to talk again in this place about the digital television issue in my electorate, particularly in Yankalilla and Gumeracha. We have had in recent months some good news delivered by the broadcasters that the five self-help stations in Yankalilla will be upgraded by the broadcasters to ensure that the people in Yankalilla receive digital television when the analog service is switched off in Adelaide in 2013. It has always been an area which has struggled with television reception because of its topography. While it is very close to the main broadcasting tower in Adelaide, it has, unfortunately, always struggled. The council has maintained these self-help towers for some time. It is good news now that we are going to have these upgraded to ensure that digital television is received. The question now is how quickly they will be upgraded. We are hoping they will be upgraded sooner than 2013 and we will be sitting down with the shadow minister, the member for Casey, who has done a sterling job on this issue, to ensure that that is the case.
More worryingly, however, Gumeracha, Cudlee Creek and Forreston have not received the positive news that Yankalilla has. They have received some news, which is that the broadcasters in their assessments believe they will be picked up by current stations which will be upgraded as part of this process. However, we are looking for some assurances from the broadcasters. Again, in conjunction with the shadow minister who visited my electorate recently and met with some of these locals, and the Adelaide Hills Council Mayor Bill Cooksley who has focused on this issue very much as well, we will be working to ensure that the people in this area—who believe it or not live closer to the Adelaide broadcast tower than most people in Adelaide do and cannot get digital TV—will be picked up by the increase in services. We will work to ensure that that view of the broadcasters will actually come to pass. Again, we want to know what the time frame for that is to ensure these people are able to get their TV service, as they deserve.
Unfortunately, this has been mishandled by the Rudd government. We are seeing that in Mildura today with a disastrous situation occurring up there, and we will see it more broadly through regional and rural Australia. They just simply do not understand the regions. They simply do not think about the impact of these sorts of policies on people who live out of the city areas. Thankfully, the Yankalilla council and the Adelaide Hills council have both worked very hard on these issues for their constituents, working alongside me and the shadow minister, who has been very focused on ensuring that people are not left behind by another Stephen Conroy stuff-up.
Order! The member will refer to ministers by their correct title.
The great international jazz musician Stan Getz said that other than conversation, no art form can give satisfaction of spontaneous interaction like jazz. On 1 May I attended the opening of the Melbourne International Jazz Festival’s ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ event. Held at the Melbourne Town Hall, it was inspired by two volumes of popular ABC music of the same title. The festival was held over seven days and showcased the extraordinary talent of our local jazz musicians at venues big and small, from the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra to the laneways of Melbourne.
In a music world that is apparently dominated by Lady Gaga and pop, the impact of jazz on popular music is often understated. I want to congratulate the artistic director, Michael Tortoni, the program director, Sophie Brous, and the festival’s chairman, Leon Kempler, for an enjoyable opening evening and an extraordinary week of jazz in Melbourne.
What impressed me most about the opening were contemporary artists Lior, Clare Bowditch, Megan Washington and Whitley, who joined together with Joe Chindamo, the celebrated Melbourne jazz pianist, and his trio, bassist Philip Rex and drummer Raj Jayaweera, to celebrate the hits of the jazz era. Standards by Frank Sinatra, Nina Simone and Billie Holliday were recast. Rodgers and Hart’s Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered was truly an extraordinary performance that quite overwhelmed the 3,000 people in the town hall. It was magnificent to see these young Australian artists paying homage to a form of music that has shaped many of their own musical styles.
One of the gifts of jazz is that it reminds us of the need to have a little more spontaneity and improvisation in our lives. Often we are confined within the walls of this honoured and esteemed building, and we get bogged down in the routine of committee meetings, reports and speeches and forget that life can be spontaneous, like an improvised note played. Jazz reminds us of the importance of spontaneity in our lives. The jazz festival, with 40,000 people attending, cements Melbourne’s place as the cosmopolitan, cultured capital.
As expected, the budget announced by Treasurer Wayne Swan is a budget that demonstrates a government out of its depth and out of control when it comes to our nation’s finances. It is a government that has focused on growing government and sucking life out of the Australian economy rather than on taking the necessary and tough decisions to reduce spending, continuing the Labor Party’s tradition of deficits and spending and no real reform. Labor’s debt of $93.7 billion represents $4,260 for every man, woman and child, which will eventually have to be repaid. The government will need to borrow $700 million a week to fund this. Labor’s debt is over $542 million for the people of Higgins alone—that is seven times the amount of BER spending in the electorate. I am deeply concerned that we are not seeing value for money for all this borrowing and spending.
This continued big spending will only put further pressure on the Reserve Bank to continue to increase interest rates, putting further pressure on the people in my electorate of Higgins. What is this budget predicated on? It is predicated on a great big new tax, a super big tax. Labor’s resource rent tax is a desperate response by a panicked government to get revenue to pay for its increased spending and cost blow-outs. In attempting to cover for its policy failures, the government is wilfully putting this country’s jobs and prosperity on the line.
Amazingly, not only has the government gone so far as to say that the new tax will have no effect on the resources sector; it has claimed that investment will grow as a result. Only in muddled ‘Ruddled’ economics can this logic be understood. These brazen claims by the Rudd government are completely at odds with the market’s view. The global credit ratings agency Moody’s has already said that the new tax will have a negative impact on access to credit by mining companies, as well as creating uncertainty for future investment. Resource stocks fell by seven per cent last week, since the new tax was announced. This equates to a $50,000 drop in a typical superannuation balance. On top of this, numerous companies have been forced to postpone new projects and expansions and are now taking a hard look at their investment in Australia. The government has tied the future of the Australian economy to a single industry that is prone to large cyclical fluctuations. The government thinks it will be able to fund its debt and spending into the future. This is not smart economic management.
But do not take my word for it. The views of commentators and business are probably best summed up by Katie Lahey, CEO of the Business Council of Australia, who said:
The government is playing a high stakes game. If the resource boom was to falter or be killed off the whole budget would collapse in a heap.
Australians have a real choice at this upcoming election: a government addicted to spending, spin and deficits or a government led by Tony Abbott which will safeguard our nation’s finances, reduce spending, stop the waste and mismanagement of taxpayer money and deliver real action that will protect and secure Australia’s economic future.
After a number of recent controversial judgments relating to law and order in the past few weeks in New South Wales, I am concerned that hardworking police officers must be asking themselves why they became cops in the first place. Two weeks ago a magistrate came to the decision that it was acceptable to call police officer a ‘prick’, clearing a university student of offensive language charges following a heated row with a senior constable at a railway station in Sydney. The magistrate went on to say that he was not satisfied that a reasonable person would be offended by the word ‘prick’ and that a police officer would have heard much worse in general conversation on numerous occasions; therefore, our police officers should be used to this type of language. I am reasonably confident that in the ordinary course of parliamentary life this would be deemed to be unparliamentary.
Another well-known magistrate in the Manly court last week accused two police officers of fabricating their versions of an incident which occurred in the early hours of the morning in Manly last year, and the magistrate consequently threw the case out of court. The finding came after the police were called to respond to and defuse an ugly crowd. It is alleged that the person charged had been drinking. He became hostile towards the police and wrestled one of the officers to the ground, pinning him down. I understand that this occurred after police officers had tried to move him from the middle of the road. He also went on to call the police ‘fucking pigs’.
I advise the member for Werriwa that, even though he is quoting, it is unparliamentary to quote that language. I am going to have to ask him to withdraw.
I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to put on record today that I am very concerned that some members of our esteemed judicial system are sanctioning this style of language and behaviour against our hardworking police officers. It is utter nonsense, and it is not good enough for our legal system to let down the people who protect our community and to feel that it is okay to treat police as second-class citizens.
It is distressing that in this chamber over a year ago I raised similar concerns regarding how police and the community felt abandoned by the Western Australian justice system after an assault took place on a police officer, leaving him paralysed. That matter went unpunished. I applaud the tough comments of Peter Remfrey, the Secretary of the Police Association of New South Wales, and I echo his remarks that police should not be regarded as punching bags for society nor should they be open to this form of abuse. I have always taught my children, and now I am teaching my grandchildren, to respect the police, and it is time that members of our judicial system show similar leadership and community based thinking. Surely our police cannot be expected to protect our communities if they themselves are not being properly protected.
Finally, I would like to congratulate Minister Chris Evans on his intention to cancel the visa of a man who was convicted of the manslaughter of Senior Constable Glenn McEnally. (Time expired)
The Rudd Labor government conceded in question time yesterday that the three per cent increase in superannuation guarantee contributions will not be paid for by the mining super tax but will be paid for by employers. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his ministers have repeatedly tried to mislead people into believing that the proposed mining super tax would pay for the increase in employer superannuation contributions. The simple fact is that increased employer funded superannuation contributions are paid for by employers. This is in stark contrast to what the Prime Minister has been trying to convince the Australian public of. In an interview on the ABC in Perth on 5 May he said that the super profits tax will, amongst other things:
… boost the superannuation earnings of working Australians by increasing the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent …
In a doorstop on 4 May in Perth, the Prime Minister said that our super profits tax in the mining industry is about three things. He went on to say that the first thing is raising the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent. He went on and on making this false and misleading claim, trying to link this super tax on the mining industry to somehow funding employer contributions for superannuation.
The small business community are awake to this. Employers well know the point that the opposition has been making—that is, the Rudd Labor government is making false and misleading claims about the mining super tax paying for increased employer superannuation contributions. Just look at some of the quotes. Jaye Radisich from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia said that there is little doubt that the increase in the superannuation guarantee of three per cent will be passed on to consumers, given that it represents a direct cost for business. Russell Zimmerman of the Australian Retailers Association said:
… retailers are being hit with increases to employment related expenses including a three percent rise in superannuation payments.
Peter Anderson, the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, also made the point. He said:
Some media reporting this morning claims that ‘the new Resource Super Profits Tax will fund the Federal Government’s promise to raise the superannuation levy from 9% to 12%.’
Regrettably, this is not the case.
And he goes on to outline why it is. What an interesting revelation it was yesterday when the Minister for Finance and Deregulation corrected the record by pointing out that the super tax is in no way funding an increase in employer contributions. He went through some budget babble and talked about forgone tax and said that that represented a cost. For the record: the forgone tax he is trying to impute has something to do with the super tax on the mining industry being forgone because there has been some forgoing of pay, wages and salaries, on which income tax would be paid, and that benefit is in turn being received as a superannuation contribution at a lower tax rate.
There is no such link. There is no guarantee of that. There is no mechanism to offset future wage claims against this increase in employer contributions. It is way past time for the Rudd government to be honest. It is misleading the Australian people about this supposed link. It needs to produce evidence that there is a direct connection—(Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 17 March, on motion by Mr Adams:
That the House take note of the report.
In my speech on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources on the role of the government to assist Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change, I would like to address the real implications of the government’s CPRS—and no, it has not gone away; it has just been put aside while it is inconvenient and while it is convenient to fiddle the books to make the budget look better than it otherwise would. Pastoralists, graziers and farmers right across the country have played a big part in setting our nation’s course. Australians have great respect for people who work on the land. The esteem in which Australians hold farmers cannot be underestimated. Farmers are seen as trustworthy, honest and hardworking, so when it came time to oppose the CPRS and basically the ETS their voices were heard clearly and without contempt.
Farmers more than anyone else on earth know precisely the nature and frequency of changes in weather and climate. These changes show up in their annual income. There are bumper crops because of rain at the right time; crop losses through droughts, storms and floods; the production and survival of calves, lambs and so on due to benign weather; and stock losses because of droughts, floods or unseasonably cold weather. Farmers know whether we are having the hottest, coldest, wettest or driest season because the weather pretty much rules their lives.
The Productivity Commission report of 2005 entitled Trends in Australian agriculture states:
Agriculture is characterised by substantial volatility in output over time, with fluctuations in climatic conditions, such as droughts, substantially impacting on output in some years. Over the last three decades, agriculture has recorded the highest level of volatility in year-to-year output growth of all industries (more than two and a half times higher than the average for all industries).
Despite that, agriculture plays a much bigger role in Australia’s exports than might be expected given its output share. In 2003-04 it directly accounted for around 22 per cent of Australia’s total goods and services exports.
Speaking as a nonfarmer, I imagine what would help farmers most is factual information about short-, medium- and long-term weather patterns. We hear a lot about El Nino and La Nina effects. Only relatively recently meteorologists decided that Australia’s weather patterns were more determined by the Indian Ocean dipole than by the Pacific, the El Nino and La Nina influences. Therefore, there is still a lot of work to be done to determine the actual causes of weather and climate changes. One thing I can tell you is that there is very little evidence that man-made carbon emissions are causing these changes. I and others have asked Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, for such evidence. None has been forthcoming.
Another thing I can assure you is that, despite assurances that agriculture will be somehow exempted or made a special case, farmers will be in the firing line. There is a graph on page 170 of the Garnaut report headed ‘Direct emissions intensity of Australia’s agriculture industry compared with selected OECD countries’. It shows Australia as being the second biggest emitter after Ireland of tonnes of CO2, at more than twice the average. The problem with exemptions is that they are illogical. If you really believe that carbon dioxide is the problem, how can you say to certain sectors, ‘Well, your CO2 is okay but their CO2 must be reduced’? CO2 is either dangerous or it is not. The IPCC and organisations which seek to control economies by the limiting of CO2 emissions insist that it is and that increased man-made CO2 emissions have caused global warming. There are parts of the Garnaut report which, if removed from the carbon dioxide obsession, are still quite useful. It refers to research into adaptation technologies. According to Garnaut, in 2006-07, 22 per cent of all government expenditure on research and development could be attributed to research into plant and animal production and primary products. However, the general idea that farmers need to be flexible and adapt to changes in consumer demands and government policies, technological advances and innovation, and emerging environmental concerns is not new. Farmers have been doing that very successfully.
The Productivity Commission research paper Trends in Australian agriculture 2005 states:
Australian agriculture has undergone considerable change over the last few decades. Thanks to rapid productivity growth, agricultural output has more than doubled in this period.
I wonder how Mr Garnaut thinks farmers achieved this amazing success, if not for flexibility and the ability to change and adapt. Farmers have been doing it pretty tough compared to other sectors of the community. The Productivity Commission report shows the ratio of prices for each sector to an all-industries price index. The changes in relative prices have contributed to the decline in the share of GDP accounted for by agriculture.
In summary, Australian farmers have been doing everything that they possibly could to ensure their farming sector is productive but, in pure economic terms, are being overshadowed by the growth in services and mining. In addition, farmers are not affected just by market vicissitudes that impact on markets but by the added variation in weather and climate. Despite this, agriculture will suffer from any form of carbon restrictions taxation or whatever other political imposition the government finally decides upon.
This ETS will provide limited protection for our trade exposed industries and, given the level of protection in certain large markets given to their local farmers, this added limiting of overseas markets could prove devastating. Despite vague indications that agriculture may get special consideration, the agricultural sector has not been provided with a certainty that it will be excluded from the scheme. As I said, that would be illogical if you are a CO2 purist. Even if there are allowances made for methane emissions from politically incorrect cows and sheep, farmers are still affected by costs on input such as energy, fertiliser and chemicals. There is not one shadow of a doubt that electricity costs will rise suddenly and substantially—and that goes for your super tax on profits with the mining sector, I have to add.
Fossil fuels are generally the cheapest, most reliable and most plentiful source of energy the world has ever seen. As I reflected in parliament recently, it is precisely that cheap and accessible energy that has enabled human progress over the last few centuries, including agriculture. One example is that farmers in Tasmania will face an increase in their electricity costs of over $10,000 by 2020 according to the government’s own modelling. This means that the 3,000 farmers in Tasmania, who collectively employ one in five Tasmanians, will face a huge rise in their electricity prices without any compensation. Everyone will feel the impact of Labor’s ETS but regional communities will be hit hardest of all.
Research commissioned by the New South Wales government into the regional impact of Labor’s scheme found that regional centres would be hardest hit. Regional communities in WA, such as central Western Australia and the Kimberley, would bear the brunt of Labor’s ETS. This pretty bleak output was reinforced in the June 2009 ABARE study which looked at the effect of the CPRS on the economic value of farm production. It confirmed that there will be increased costs of electricity, fuels and freight. It also said that farmers may face lower farm gate prices for their goods from downstream processors.
The production of fertiliser and chemicals is an energy-intensive process. Therefore, domestic fertiliser and chemical producers will face significantly higher input costs. Amazingly, ABARE says that, because there will be international companies also producing these products, competition will prevent price rises. The problem for Australian companies is that, if their costs are increasing but they cannot increase prices, financial oblivion surely beckons. Then we will have no local chemical and fertiliser companies and farmers will be at the mercy of overseas companies without the protection of a local producer.
The ABARE report also highlights the difficulty of assessing the economic impact of the CPRS, because no-one has any idea what the real price of carbon might be. The government estimated that the initial price in 2011 would be $10 per tonne. The price after that will be determined by the domestic permit market as well as rules around access to international markets and will not be known until after the scheme commences. ABARE also says that its analysis assumes an emission price equal to that projected by Treasury, increasing on average by four per cent a year.
In summary, agriculture may initially be exempt from paying for its direct emissions but will be impacted upon by other sectors, principally energy, but that exemption may change at any time. The cost of carbon may start at $10 a tonne but, because the price is not attached to anything real, the price in one or five years is anyone’s guess. If that sounds like economic vandalism and the height of stupidity, you have it in one. All of the economic assessments I have read include such uncertainties. In other words it is a matter of, ‘We will try to guess what impact this will have, not knowing how exempt or not your industry will be and what the carbon price will be.’ It reminds me of the old story about the farmer who won Lotto. He was asked what he would do and he replied, ‘Keep farming until it is all gone.’
I listened with interest to the member for Tangney’s 15-minute discussion on Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, he did not actually glance at the report in front of him. I will try to correct that, having been one of the members of the committee that did work on this report, a committee which involved people from the National Party, Independents, Liberals and the Labor Party, a broad group of people. But the member for Tangney obviously did not take the time to engage with the report when he was standing up in the chamber giving his diatribe.
I probably did agree with his first three sentences where he talked about the role that farmers have played in Australia. But after that he went off on a bit of a flight of fancy that did not have much to do with the real world that we live in—the real world that involves real facts from real scientists who have provided peer-reviewed information that insists that climate change is real. That is the first fact that I wanted to bring the member for Tangney back to. The report we have in front of us understood that very clearly. Even though we dealt with a range of farmers over a range of areas in Australia, from very wet to very dry and everything in between, farmers understood that the climate is changing. It is not just variable; they understood that the climate is changing.
I too am familiar with the Garnaut report. I am not a scientist or a farmer, but I do understand the basic aspects of science. If you keep increasing the heat in a system then something will happen. If you look at page 26 of the Garnaut report and just look at the measured trends of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide—which have been measured with varying degrees of accuracy, but certainly quite accurately from the 1800s to the 1900s—there is just a clear progression. It makes scientific sense to me that if you keep increasing temperatures then something will happen. If you look at some of the other graphs in the Garnaut report, you see what Australia’s role is in terms of being one of the 20 largest greenhouse gas emitters. Even though we are a small country, our per capita emissions mean that we have a particular responsibility to the rest of the world to show some leadership.
Why is that so? If you look at the history of Australia, we have always been particularly susceptible to the variations of climate—temperature, rainfall and the like. Obviously the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were able to adapt to these harsh variabilities, whether they were fisherpeople, hunter-gatherers or whatever. If you look at the first white settlers from 1788 on, they came with European sensibilities and farming practices. They were reasonably advanced compared to the rest of Europe, but they still ended up sowing the wrong crops at the wrong time. They quickly had to learn how to be Australian farmers rather than European farmers. They had enough ingenuity. Even though the First Fleet nearly starved to death, they eventually worked out how to survive.
Australian farmers, from those days to now, have always been at the coalface or the cutting edge when it comes to coping with climate change. I think ‘the cutting edge’ is a farming term, but both the coalface and the cutting edge are expressions that are out of date because the minimum tillage farming used by modern farmers is nothing like the farming that I grew up with, as we saw on some of our field trips. It was incredible what they were doing with GPS guided ploughs. They use minimum tillage so they are able to minimise disruption and produce incredible crops. In terms of our productivity gains over the last 50 years, farmers have held their heads high. They have been at the lead in the economy in terms of making sure they can produce lots of crops, take them to the world market without the subsidies of the Europeans, the United States and a few other countries, and hold their own. From what we saw from the field inspections and from the peak bodies that we interviewed in the committee, we certainly will be able to hold our own in the years to come because they understand climate variability and they understand climate change.
This report brings together that intersection that we need for the future. You will always need the individual ingenuity of farmers. We always need that and the strong, financially secure farmers do that. We also need the market forces so people who make money out of innovations—fertilisers, ploughs or whatever it is—can take those innovations to the market and sell them. That is one of the ways that we bring in innovation, but we also need government support and guidance and some of the peak bodies to look at opportunities that come with climate change. We have seen it. The peanut board saw that climate change was going to bring rainfall variations and said, ‘In the long term, we need to find other places to grow peanuts.’ They said, ‘There will be rain and reasonably available land in the Northern Territory and it suits peanuts, so we will go there.’ If you are sitting at home as a farmer down in Kingaroy or something like that, you might not necessarily know that. So that interaction between the peak bodies, the market and government support seems to bode well for a bright future.
The member for Tangney, in his rambling discussion, mentioned the CPRS but forgot to mention the fundamental problem with the history of the CPRS as told by the members of the Liberal Party. I was in the chamber; I saw how people voted on the CPRS legislation. Apart from one bloke from the seat of Wentworth, everyone I saw was on the other side of the chamber. Everyone in the Liberal Party voted against the CPRS. They voted against bringing in a price on carbon. When the legislation went to the Senate, I held out some hope that at the Copenhagen climate change summit we might be able to stand up and show some guidance to the world, go there with a bit of certainty and say, ‘This is what we might do.’ I was hopeful. Young, optimistic, I thought—
Government members interjecting—
Well, maybe not young! But I was optimistic. I thought we might go to Copenhagen and see humanity’s finest hour. That is what I hoped. Instead, in the Senate, apart from Senator Sue Boyce from Queensland and Senator Troeth from Victoria—
Responsible people.
Responsible people, courageous people: on the very day that Tony Abbott got his anti-climate-change ticket up and rolled Malcolm Turnbull, they crossed the floor. When I looked over at the other side of the Senate, I could see the five Greens sitting with the National Party and Liberal Party climate change skeptics. It was a shameful moment.
So we went off to Copenhagen, and a lot of great things came out of Copenhagen, but it was not humanity’s finest moment. People forget the good things that came out of Copenhagen. We got a commitment from all world leaders to hold an increase in global temperature to below two degrees Celsius. That is a commitment important to every Australian farmer, especially the marginal farmers in South Australia beyond the border. It is an important achievement: farming will continue in South Australia because of the hard work done in Copenhagen. I remind people that the two countries that worked hardest to achieve that consensus were Australia and the United Kingdom. That is something we can tell our grandchildren. We held our heads up high. We had dark moments in the Senate and on the floor of the House of Representatives but we did achieve something in Copenhagen. There is also a framework to keep track of what we are doing so that we can measure what is going on in terms of production and so that the climate change sceptics, the Lord Moncktons and the like that have grabbed the ears of those opposite, do not hold sway.
The other big thing is that, obviously, it is not enough to just be committed to something; you have to put your money where your mouth is. That is what happened. All the leaders agreed on the finance necessary to support the emissions reductions and particularly the adaptations that are necessary in developing countries. We have had the benefits of the Industrial Revolution, but some of those developing countries have not. Rather than just saying, ‘Tough luck—there’s no more space at the table; you’ll just have to suffer and burn up,’ thankfully, the world’s governments had enough soul to say: ‘No, we’ll do what we can. We’ll find the finance to ensure that you can make some adaptations.’
So they were some of the good things that came out of Copenhagen. If you listen to talkback radio and some of the misguided people on the other side of the chamber, from the way they misrepresent the Copenhagen conference you might think it did not achieve anything. The reality is that the Copenhagen summit, led by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, Minister Wong, Gordon Brown and a few others from the UK, was able to achieve some wonderful things. While it was not humanity’s finest hour, it was maybe not its darkest hour, as it is painted by some people.
To return to the Farming the future report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources, it was incredible to travel around the country—although I was not able to go to Western Australia or some of the other field centres that the committee visited—and talk to the farmers and see the simple things they are doing to ensure the future of farming. For example, they are putting in something as simple as harvestable trees, which put carbon into the soil but also give a good timber yield every 20 to 25 years or something.
The innovations were incredible and it was quite comforting, as someone from the bush, although I now represent a city seat—even though the Brisbane Markets are in my electorate—to see that the farmers are well and truly ahead of the fact that Australia’s climate is changing, and we need to be prepared for that. It is not a matter of knee-jerk reactions and short term goals—‘It has rained this year; it will be a drought next year.’ Instead, the committee saw time after time that Australian farmers are ready to adapt to climate change. Obviously there are some recommendations there as to how we might further their preparedness, how we might further their readiness. I am sure that the government will consider those. I was quite comforted by what was happening on the farms we visited. I commend the report to everyone, and especially to the member for Tangney, as it demonstrates how prepared and how far advanced our farmers are.
I am pleased to speak on the Farming the future report. I am drawn to the comments of the member for Moreton. I would consider, even though he might publicly bemoan the lack of passing of the ETS, that privately his opinions might not be quite the same, given that had we passed the ETS we would be implementing a $14 billion tax a year on industry to go with the $9 billion resources tax that the government announced only two weeks ago. In fact, if he feels so strongly about it, of course the government can go to a double dissolution election on it. He and his colleagues may well wish to do that, but I suspect not.
I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources, but I do have a longstanding interest in these matters. As a farmer before I entered this place, involved in agripolitics, and having a long involvement in the agricultural research community as a farmer representative, I have been looking at this report with great interest. I was particularly drawn to its chapter on research and extension. I was recently at a Canberra dinner, hosted by the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology. I was privileged to hear an address by the respected agriculture journalist Julian Cribb. He informed us that while the world was focussing on eight to nine billion people in 2050, in fact he believes we will have 11 billion people in the world by 2060. Surely this is an alarming figure. It will be one of the great challenges of the next 50 years and, as far as addressing the greatest moral issue of our generation is concerned—the Prime Minister used to talk about this on a regular basis—feeding this world of 11 billion people will indeed take some topping.
Feeding the population is not just about things like widespread famine, as calamitous as that would be; it is about the security of the world as we know it. Most wars are caused by economic disadvantage—nothing sharpens the bayonet like starving children. At the same time as this demand increases, we will continue to lose the most productive land on the planet to urban sprawl and land degradation, and there will be increasing competition for water resources. The planet will need to double food production while at the same time we expect to lose up to 30 per cent of our arable lands. Australia has both an opportunity and an obligation to be a big part of the solution. We must unlock the untapped potential of this land. We are traditionally a supplier of food to the world. Our regional security will rely on us expanding this role.
Those who believe agriculture is a sunset industry are wrong. They are wrong, they have to be wrong, because if agriculture is not a new horizon all else will fail. Collectively, the agricultural industry and parliaments have allowed governments to steadily reduce public investment in agricultural science. The road to discovery is very long, and we are still reaping the benefits of the investment of the sixties and seventies into agricultural advances. Certainly many of our scientists were trained in this time, when the prospective career paths in agricultural sciences were more attractive. Currently our agricultural training courses are well undersubscribed, and, without wishing to offend anyone, we struggle to attract the top students.
There will be simply no alternative: Australia and the world will have to start seriously investing in agriculture again. Five million dollars of research funding was cut from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry budget last year, and this year another $80 million has been taken away from Caring for Our Country. In my state, South Australia, the South Australian Research and Development Institute can expect no more than standstill budgets in the foreseeable future. We must spend more. We must invest more heavily. We must promote the industry as the progressive future we need. For that we need more research and development funding in order to address this imminent threat to food production. Investment in R&D is the backbone of agricultural industry, but it has been diminishing in real terms for 25 years.
We have had emergency drought aid around Australia for some years now, with mixed results. In some cases it has done what it was supposed to do and supported good producers through a tough patch. In others it has distorted the market and stopped good young farmers from investing in the industry. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke, has signalled the government’s intention to move away from exceptional circumstances support and has announced a pilot program in Western Australia targeting farm planning and efficiency. I wish the program well, as at least it aims to increase productivity and efficiency, but much more will be needed for our farmers to remain profitable and the world to avert a food crisis.
The key to farmer and community prosperity is production advantage—to be the best cutting-edge farmers in the world. As we deal with climate change, the pressures from international trade, the rising costs of doing business in the Australian economy, the likely rises in inputs, and the weakness of the American dollar which will continue to reduce our competitiveness, the best possible chance we have of avoiding the periodic requests for assistance to the agricultural industry is to make sure we have a profitable sector. The best way to ensure we adapt to the impacts of climate change is to make sure we have a profitable agricultural sector. The best way of doing this is to provide the scientific horsepower to drive adaptation and the adoption of new technology.
Disturbingly, we are held hostage of the green left, who tend to oppose any advances in technological agriculture as being somehow bad for the general public—as if starving to death would be a good outcome. At the current time there are still bans in South Australia on growing GM products, when the rest of the nation has moved on. Indeed, the rest of the world is moving on and we will soon see widespread adoption of this technology in China and other parts of Asia. We simply cannot limit technology; we must support and amplify it. Unfortunately at the current time we have the handbrake on.
Australia’s agricultural research, development and extension effort is declining at the very time growers and rural industries need research to provide solutions to the challenges of the world’s growing population. Less funding directly impacts upon production capability, food security, natural resource management and the ability to cope with seasonal variation and climate change. Recommendations 3, 5, 6 and 7 in this Farming the future report all ask for extra research funding—recommendation 3 for soil sciences, recommendation 5 for greenhouse gas science, recommendation 6 for new technologies, and recommendation 7 for weather forecasting. I sit on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, which has just completed a report on long-term weather forecasting. That report also recommends greater funding in this area—science to assist agriculture to predict and adapt to climate change.
Agriculture has maintained productivity growth of about 2.8 per cent during the past 20 years but it is starting to slow, a trend that Geoff Thomas, the President of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology—who was the host of the dinner I attended—believes is directly linked to the slowing down of research. He said another major threat to Australian agriculture was the shortage of agriculture graduates. Mr Thomas said:
This is at a time when Australian growers are being expected to maintain or increase productivity in the face of unprecedented cost and environmental pressures and rapidly worsening terms of trade.
I welcome this report into farming for the future, particularly the chapter on research and extension. Its conclusion at paragraph 6.53 actually says that research funding in Australia is at a bare minimum to drive the industry. So this report is not a signal to kick back; it should actually have the alarm bells ringing, because, as I pointed out, in four other recommendations it asks for increased research spending. If Australia does not meet its challenge to increase food production, if it does not make its farmers profitable, the world in the end will not be secure and it will become increasingly insecure if it is not well fed, as indeed will our farmers.
I seek leave to speak again without closing the debate.
Leave granted.
I thank the honourable member for Grey for his contribution on the report of the committee which I chair. I think it was a very good report and I think we were able to pull together many good recommendations on the needs and the future for farming in Australia. As I mentioned in my tabling speech, this report set out to look at the current and respective adaptations to the impact of climate change on agriculture and the potential impacts on downstream processing. It also considered the role of government in augmenting the shift towards farming practices which promote resilience in the farm sector in the face of climate change, and promoting research, extension and training which assist the farm sector to better adapt to climate change. The report covered a pretty broad area of changes that are currently going on and also gave us an insight into the barriers to change for the future. For instance, one submission noted:
Rural research development and education will need to be greatly increased if Australian farmers are to remain profitable, sustainable and internationally competitive. Research and knowledge creation will not achieve the rates of change and adaptation required from Australian farmers without mechanisms to ensure its effective communication and adoption.
I think that sums up a lot, including what the honourable member for Grey, the previous speaker, was saying: we need to have a lot of research and development but also education and getting that out there into the farming sector. The barriers in this case were the lack of ways of getting innovative ideas out into the community. The CCRSPI submission states on page 16:
Over the past decades successive governments, both state and federal, have reduced funding to rural extension networks and shut rural research stations. This has greatly reduced the capacity of governments to assist farmers to adopt new R&D and to be able to demonstrate and commercialise new technologies and practices in the field.
Others raised the point that adoption of improved practices takes time. One of the best ways to foster and accelerate the adoption rate of improved practices is through incentives and investment which reduce the barriers and risks, often financial, of adoption. A triple-objective practice/improvement/incentive program would well position Australia’s agriculture for whatever mix of emissions, carbon trading and international agreements are to be implemented in Australia. Equally importantly, this would improve Australian agriculture’s overall resilience by improving productivity and sustainability. One could say the same applies to the forest industry that is going through some restructuring traumas at the moment, especially in Tasmania. So the message was that there were currently no good pathways by which the research organisations or innovative individuals could share their knowledge in a cooperative way. Most of those pathways have been privatised, so the spread of good news can only be gained if you have the funds to pay for it or if you know where to look.
Professor Frank Vanclay and Mrs Aysha Fleming identified a number of social and attitudinal barriers to climate change adaptation:
Resistance to change is not just about individual reactions, it is a broader social issue. This means that resistance does not occur within an individual’s head, or because of an individual’s personal characteristics—education level, personal motivations or situation, skills or beliefs. Resistance is created by common perceptions, norms and values held in society.
They also go on to say:
If climate change is perceived as being too big to influence, because climate is something intangible, invisible and seemingly out of human control, it can lead to rejection. Climate change is dismissed outright, and can lead to feeling overwhelmed or hopeless.
So, sold badly, it all becomes too hard and farmers, like many others, are not equipped to really find out how it will affect them.
Communicating a clear and consistent message on climate change is a prerequisite to successful adaptation. Governments at all levels need to undertake to deliver this message in a manner relevant to the experience of farmers, for whom managing climate variability is a long-term and everyday experience. Part of this is in understanding the decision-making processes of farmers. Another part is the creation of positive messages about how adaptation can improve business resilience, maintain or increase productivity and promote personal and social welfare. Then there are the social implications, which are highlighted only too vividly in the Rural Alive and Well submissions and discussions. There need to be options, ways forward and ways out without losing your life savings or your dignity. Remember that people have sometimes been on their land for many generations. They explained to the committee the importance of reaching out to vulnerable members of the rural community and providing support. A key role of the service was to make connections with the support services provided by government and help people access those services.
One problem the service faced was the silo mentality of governments and bureaucracies; another was the lack of secure funding for the service they provided. The essential ingredients of the service they provide are intervention and building personal connections, giving people a sense that they are not facing the trials and tribulations of life alone. The consequences of such an approach were highlighted at a meeting with departmental officials and farmer representatives in Geraldton in Western Australia. The creation of a strong social support network in the region involving strong peer support and pre-emptive strategy allowed the farming community there to get through a period of severe drought in 2006 and 2007 without one instance of suicide. The success of such services, which were highlighted in Tasmania and Western Australia, shows that we should be concentrating our assistance packages in difficult circumstances to smooth the exit routes and provide support and networks where change can be managed.
I believe in and support the extension of funding periods to allow stability for these services as well as ensuring that the methods of information sharing can be further investigated and maybe allow a return to state governments employing a new breed of extension officers to assist with opportunities through new ways and new thinking. We in Australia are more fortunate than many in the Western world in that we have the skills and resources to manage change as long as governments recognise the need to support and fund given the upheavals that come and go. The federal government has proved itself in successfully boosting the economy during the economic downturn. Now I believe it is the turn of the rural sector to be assisted in dealing with the changing circumstances which are bearing down on it. Climate change can be managed if understood. Its impact varies across the nation. We must be ready to ensure our rural industries are flexible and able to adapt to the changes from that as well as being able to minimise the risk of their impacts, such as through drought proofing and crop and stock variation.
I hope the report is found to be useful in this ongoing discussion and I look forward to the government’s response and assistance in putting the recommendations in place. It was a pleasure to do the report. It was about a year’s work for the committee, who worked hard through its visits and through its meetings with people in Canberra. There are several points that I would like to touch on. One concerns recommendation 3 of the report where we touch on soil stabilisation and pasture improvement using such methods as having annual pastures instead of open soil, pasture cropping, putting wheat straight into a pasture and rotation grazing, which has probably been around some time but is new in many areas whereby people only graze a paddock for a couple of days and move the stock on so that the grasses grow and are not eaten right down. That is a whole new concept coming into play there. There is biodynamic farming and minimum- or no-till cultivation and controlled traffic farming. Of course no-till or minimum-till agriculture farming as to moisture, as I think they call it, is on the Liverpool Plains. It is quite interesting to see the way that they have gone about that. I think they claim that they retain two per cent extra moisture in the soil by not turning the soil and keeping the old stubble on top of the soil, therefore the following crop grows straight into the soil. It has its issues which they are continuing to deal with as they move into that sort of new concept. Controlled traffic farming is where you take the tractor or the machinery along the same wheel lines down the paddock every time so that you do not compact the soil and therefore destroy many of the good things such as the micro-organisms et cetera in the soil. You would also be wasting fertiliser and seed if you were to put them in areas which got chopped up by wheels.
These are emerging opportunities for rural Australia. Getting the position right globally is important. Getting manufacturers to make wheel alignments so that contractors can buy the same wheel line-ups for that sort of work will take some time, but it is important for the future of agriculture in Australia. Soil water retention strategies are important, as I said, to reduce the cultivation of soils and to retain moisture in them.
Again I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House, who worked so well with me, and also the member for Hume, my deputy, and the staff of the secretariat who bravely stepped at times where others feared to go.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this report titled Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change and begin by commending the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources, the committee’s chair—the member for Lyons—and the secretariat for its work on this very important national issue.
Since European settlement of Australia, our farming sector has been crucial to Australia’s prosperity and the wellbeing of the Australian people. Animal farming, cereal crops, horticulture, wine growing and vegetable growing are major industry sectors that underpin the economy of communities around Australia. I understand that, on the latest figures available to me, which were the figures for the year 2008-09, agricultural exports alone were worth $32 billion to our nation.
The income generated from these farming communities in turn has a flow-on effect on numerous other industry sectors as well as being of critical importance to Australia’s balance of trade net position. Furthermore, the production of quality agricultural products has been and will continue to be critical to the good health and health costs of the nation.
Since World War II, employment in the agricultural sector has been in decline, primarily because of automation. If you travel around Australia—and certainly in my own state of South Australia—there are many country towns that 40, 50 and 60 years ago were fairly prosperous small communities. Many of them today are very much in decline and some of them have effectively closed down altogether because we need fewer people to carry out the farming operations that, years ago, were carried out by entire families, and certainly many more people were directly involved in the industry.
What we have been seeing in recent times, however, is not only a threat to employment in the agricultural sector but also a threat to the productive capacity of the sector. There have been several factors which have contributed to these threats. Climate change is undoubtedly the most significant of these factors, with the last decade being clear evidence of the impact to Australia’s farming sector of climate change. Rising temperatures, heatwaves, droughts, floods, tornadoes, cyclones, fires, disease and pests are all associated with climatic changes and all can have devastating effects on farming.
On the issue of pests, only yesterday the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry outlined a government response to the locust plague that farmers around Australia are facing right now. It is a plague which is seeing the eggs being laid right now and which will break out into a full-blown plague perhaps in spring, right at the worst possible time for farmers. Having recently travelled through the Riverland areas of South Australia and Victoria, I saw for myself what that locust plague is doing and the number of locusts already affecting farms in those areas. It is truly frightening for those people whose livelihood depends on producing a product which can literally, in one or two days, be entirely wiped out.
All of those kinds of risks have been faced by the farming community for years and years, but there is no doubt at all that those risks, as a result of climate change, are now more unpredictable and likely to be more frequent. We saw only last year in Northern Queensland the effects of the floods. We heard stories from members of this House who represent constituencies in those areas about the devastation to farming communities as a result of those floods. We are told by the scientific community that those floods are likely to occur more often and be more unpredictable. It is that kind of unpredictability that makes farming even more risky than ever before. In that respect, the farming community of Australia and the farmers themselves understand weather as well as anyone. They understand the risks they are taking and in the past have been able to adapt to them and cope with them. But I believe it is going to get tougher and tougher for them as our climate continues to change in a way that we have never seen before.
The severe impacts of climate change on the Australian farming sector were recognised by former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer as far back as 2001. He noted at the time that the impacts would increase in the future. How right he was. That was a decade ago. It was a decade before we saw effectively one of the worst decades in our history in respect of drought in this country and a decade where the farming sector was truly put under severe strain as a result of that.
Of course, there has been much more research on and a better understanding of climate change over the last decade. The evidence continues to mount that we will face more extreme weather events in the future, that global temperatures will continue to rise and that rainfall patterns will change. We have seen in the last century alone an increase in temperature here in Australia of 0.7 degrees, most of which occurred in the last 50 years. The trends suggest that by the end of this century temperatures will have increased by another one degree. In fact, although I do not have it with me, I noticed a report in one of the newspapers—it was yesterday, I believe—which talked about temperature rises over the next 200 years that will make some parts of this earth almost uninhabitable. Those are certainly long-term predictions and things may well turn out to be different to that, but they are certainly warning signs and ringing alarm bells that we should be taking note of. If we do, we may be in a much better position at the right time to respond to those changes because we might have adapted to them or in some cases we might have been able to prevent them. All of these changes have impacted and will continue to impact on the farming sector, as I said a moment ago. I am sure that farmers will be at the forefront of providing the appropriate adaptive mechanisms.
In my own state of South Australia those effects have been most noticeable in the Riverland region, which is the region I mentioned a few moments ago. The combination of drought, record low Murray River inflows and international market competition has been disastrous to the region. I note that the committee was unable to come to South Australia but, if in the future there is an opportunity for a similar committee to do so, the Riverland region of South Australia is certainly worth visiting in terms of understanding other aspects of the effects of climate change on the community.
The Riverland community of South Australia has a population of around 35,000. Fifty per cent of South Australia’s grapes are grown in that region. It is also a prime area for the growing of citrus, cherries and olives. Because I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are property owners in the Riverland region, I am aware of the impact the last 10 years have had on their region. Firstly, it began with competition from overseas, when the price for what they were producing was being undercut by overseas competitors—both affecting their export trade and impacting directly on their local markets. That in itself was difficult enough to contend with. They then had the wine industry also under intense pressure from overseas suppliers and growers. We saw wine prices begin to decline.
On top of that they were then hit with the drought and low water levels in the Murray River which, in turn, meant that their water allocations were insufficient to enable many of them to produce their full quantum of crops. As a result, if you drive through the Riverland you will see long-term plantings ripped out and lying there waiting to be destroyed and you will see whole fruit blocks abandoned. You will also see that a lot of the farmers from that region have put their properties on the market for sale. All of these are clear signs of the difficulties that they have had to contend with. They have certainly done it tough. Individual farm production has dropped and we have seen families at both health and financial crisis points. In that respect I commend the committee on its very first recommendation, which talks about supporting groups such as Rural Alive and Well. I have spoken with people who act as counsellors and advisers in the Riverland region of South Australia and have heard directly from them some of the stories about the difficulties being faced by people from their region—the financial difficulties and the health impacts on families, particularly on the mental health of some of the farmers from that area. Most of those people are very proud people—they will not ask for help. They will do what they can to ensure that they survive, but at times the pressure just gets too much for them.
If farming production continues to decline in Australia it will affect not only the farming communities but all Australians. Reliance on countries that do not implement food production standards similar to the standards that are applied in Australia is a real concern to me, as it is to most Australians I talk to. I know that most Australian farmers are well informed and responsible in their use of chemicals, pesticides and fertilisers in food production. I do not have the same confidence about imported foods. What is just as concerning is that most consumers do not know the origin of the food they consume, which highlights the need to have clear labelling laws in place in Australia.
I have spoken with farmers here in Australia and I have confidence that they do understand the impacts of the chemicals they use. Sometimes those chemicals are absolutely necessary to prevent disease or pests, but farmers understand the effects of chemicals on humans who consume their food, so they take the right precautionary approaches when they use those chemicals. Regrettably, that is not necessarily the case with food grown overseas. While we have import standards in place, the reality is that we simply cannot check all the food that is imported into this country to the degree that we would like to ensure that it has not been grown using, for example, pesticides that have been banned in this country or other fertilisers or chemical treatments that we would never use. Those chemicals were banned in this country because of their effects on health, so when we consume food from overseas countries we cannot have the same level of certainty about the possible health outcomes. That, in turn, impacts on the nation’s health budget because there is no question that good food gives you good health outcomes and bad food does the opposite. If we have poorer health outcomes because of the food that we are eating, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that our health costs will continue to spiral and add another layer of burden onto governments trying to manage Australia’s health budgets.
If we had clearer labelling laws, at least consumers would have a greater opportunity to choose the foods that they purchase when they go into supermarkets. I suspect that, if they could choose, we would find that more of them would choose the Australian grown product. And that would in turn—getting back to an earlier argument I put—support the growers here in Australia because I suspect that most Australians would like to think that they are supporting Australian growers when they do buy their food.
There is another element to the purchase of products from overseas: because they are grown the way they are, they are grown generally much cheaper than locally produced products. We live in a society where we have two major supermarket chains that in turn dictate the price at the farm gate for all products. That is also putting intense pressure on growers. I am well aware that many growers, in order to secure big contracts with those two major supermarket chains, agree to prices that make it absolutely borderline as to whether they can make their farms viable and continue to survive. They have no option because, if they do not provide products at those prices, they do not provide products at all because the two major supermarkets are the outlets for most of the food grown in this country. So it becomes very difficult.
The combination of international competition, market domination by the supermarket chains and now climate change means that the future of Australia’s agriculture and farming sectors will be fraught with uncertainty. For those reasons, the work of the committee—in acknowledging the risks to farmers associated with climate change, outlining a series of strategies aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change and putting in measures to assist affected communities—is in the national interest.
I particularly acknowledge the emphasis placed by the committee on the need for more research across a range of areas and the important role government has in that research. There is no question that the research carried out by CSIRO and others is of vital importance to the future survival of agricultural and farming industries in this country. I also note the section of the report that talks about farmers being involved in that research. I emphasise that point because I think there is a great deal of merit in it. Farmers understand their land and their products. They understand changing climatic conditions, and I think they understand the science behind the production of their products. Therefore, it is absolutely important that we include them in research. I commend the report to the House.
I commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources on their report Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change. I particularly commend the chair of the committee, Dick Adams; the deputy chair, Alby Schultz; and, indeed, the members. This is a bipartisan report and it shows that there is a deep concern among members of this House about the effects of climate change across the country. This report deals with the effects on the farming community, and it follows a report by another standing committee of the House of Representatives—the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, chaired by the member for Throsby. It reported last year to this House on the effects of climate change on coastal management, particularly in relation to planning issues.
Reports of this type show that there is an understandable and entirely proper concern among members of this House with the effects of climate change, which are real, which are being observed across the country, which will affect the lives of everybody in Australia and which do call for action by governments and all Australians. I would start with this observation. It has been noted most recently by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology and it can be summarised in this way:
Australia will be hotter in coming decades
Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 ºC by 2030. If global greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow at rates consistent with past trends, warming is projected to be in the range of 2.2 to 5.0 ºC by 2070 …
Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades
We have already observed the average surface air temperature of Australia increasing by 0.7 degrees Centigrade over the past century, and that warming has been accompanied by marked declines in regional precipitation, in particular along the east and west coasts of the continent. These seemingly quite small changes in temperature are already having profound effects across the continent, which is, as we all know, the hottest and driest continent on earth. Even if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the earth would still be committed to an additional warming of somewhere between 0.2 degrees Centigrade and one degree Centigrade by the end of the century.
These real effects are what make it necessary for all industries, including agricultural industries, to adapt to the changes that are already occurring and will continue to occur. What this report does is make a series of considered recommendations. They are conservative recommendations—they show a conservative approach—and perhaps that is why the report attracted bipartisan support. They are conservative in a way that can be contrasted directly with the crazy radical approach that has been adopted by the Leader of the Opposition and indeed by Senator Minchin on this subject.
It is a matter of extreme puzzlement as to why the Leader of the Opposition and the gang of climate change deniers that are now controlling the opposition have made climate change denial a plank in the coalition’s platform. We hear repeatedly from the Leader of the Opposition that he is a conservative. We hear from Senator Minchin that he is a conservative. They are not conservatives. The approach taken in this report is conservative. Senator Minchin, the Leader of the Opposition and the gang that they are with are crazy radicals. They are reckless in the face of the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists, not only in this country but across the world. Senator Minchin and the Leader of the Opposition want to line up with the tiny minority who are denying the science. A true conservative would say that, given the scale of the cataclysmic events that are predicted, if there is even a one per cent chance of those events occurring we should be doing everything possible to conserve the world which gives us life.
A lot of this denial ideology, which we see on a daily basis from people on the opposition benches and, in particular, from the Leader of the Opposition, is taken directly from Republican Party hardliners in the United States. It is the Republican Party of Sarah Palin. I am happy to say that even some Republicans in the United States understand what the true conservative position is. I can indeed quote from a perhaps unlikely source: the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has fought against the climate change deniers in the Republican Party in the United States. He spoke very eloquently, using a medical scenario, which I will paraphrase: 98 doctors out of 100 say to you that your child has a particular ailment and the cure for that ailment is a particular medicine, and two adamantly say, ‘Absolutely not; we don’t think your child has that ailment and, even if your child does, that is not the cure.’ Governor Schwarzenegger said—rightly; it is what any parent would do—‘I go with the 98.’ That is simply the precautionary principle, a principle recognised in environmental science and in Australian environmental law. We do not ask for certainty before taking action to prevent environmental damage; we act on probabilities. We act on proper risk assessments, just as we do in other spheres of life.
That is why this report is properly viewed as taking a true conservative approach. It recognises that the effects of climate change are happening, even if there is some doubt about the extent of those effects. For example, it is known that one effect of climate change will be less frost and therefore there will be a temporary benefit to agriculture in some areas of Australia, but overall the likely effect of climate change will be less rain over most of the continent and greater evaporation because of hotter temperatures over most of the continent, and agriculture will become more difficult. That is why the recommendations in this report which are directed to increased research by the Commonwealth government on issues affecting farmers and agriculture are appropriate, as is an analysis of government policy generally as to how government policy can guard against the potentially disastrous effects on agriculture. All of these are to be commended.
However, on a daily basis, we have had a continuation of the Leader of the Opposition’s position that climate change is absolute crap. He was at it again last week, speaking to primary school children in Adelaide and telling them, bizarrely, that it was warmer ‘at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth’ than now. Rightly, scientists across Australia have condemned the Leader of the Opposition, who should know better. The President of the Australian Academy of Science, Professor Kurt Lambeck, was quoted as saying:
… true scepticism was fine, but required looking at published data with an open mind.
“To make these glib statements to school students, I think, is wrong. It’s not encouraging them to be sceptical, it’s encouraging them to accept unsubstantiated information.”
The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to disagree with Australia’s Chief Scientist, the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists in Australia and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose work is supported by Australia.
I am hoping that the Leader of the Opposition will wake up, that Senator Minchin will depart and that the coalition will start to adopt a true conservative position, which is to preserve the earth which preserves us. That is why I commend the report of this committee for taking a true conservative position which acknowledges the risks to Australian agriculture and calls for action.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hayes) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 15 March, on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson:
That the House take note of the report.
I wish to speak today about the extradition treaty between Australia and the Republic of India that forms part of report No. 110 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. My concern is not with this treaty per se but with certain aspects of Australia’s extradition treaties in general. I was first alerted to these issues when JSCOT considered the extradition treaty between Australia and the United Arab Emirates in 2008 in the context of the committee’s report No. 91.
First, I want to acknowledge that extradition treaties are an important part of Australia’s criminal justice system and that they contribute to the effort to combat transnational organised crime, which has been made easier through modern international travel and communication technologies. We do not want Australia to become a safe haven for persons who have committed serious crimes in other countries. It is also in Australia’s interest and part of its duty as a good global citizen to cooperate with other countries as much as possible. However, it is with a measure of concern that I note the international trend towards a ‘no evidence’ standard for extradition cases, which means that, with most extradition requests received by Australia, a determination of guilt or innocence is regarded as a matter for the courts of the requesting state. While this has meant more expeditious processing of extradition cases—and I acknowledge that an in-depth examination of the possibility of the death penalty or torture being applied takes place prior to an extradition decision being taken—nevertheless, the no evidence standard means that a person can be extradited on the basis of quite limited information. I note that this is not the case for certain countries, including the United States, South Korea and India, which still require a prima facie case to be made out from the evidence that the person to be extradited could be found guilty of criminal conduct.
During the public hearing with regard to the extradition treaty with the UAE, the CEO of Civil Liberties Australia, Mr William Rowlings, said the following:
In talking about ministerial prerogative, our paper makes clear that there are effectively no standards or guidelines by which the minister is to make a serious judgement as to whether or not a person is to be extradited from Australia. The minister is not obliged to consider evidence and has only to consider information. This is a very low standard of level of satisfaction that any case has actually been made out. In effect, the minister is acting in a similar role to a committing magistrate in Australia but without the person to be extradited receiving the benefit of any of the legal protections of someone in a committal procedure in a court of law in Australia. Such a person cannot argue their case and see or know what the information is that has been put before the minister, and there is no mechanism for the person in question to receive any hearing to counter any allegations or to make a case for nonextradition.
According to Civil Liberties Australia, the person who is the subject of the extradition request is not entitled to see or know what information has been provided about them and their country’s circumstances to Australia. I think it is entirely fair to ask how a person who is the subject of an extradition request is meant to legitimately resist their extradition in such circumstances. They would be denied the natural justice right to know and respond to the terms in which they are accused, and Australia is in turn denied the important opportunity to perceive any possible inconsistencies or other shortcomings in the nature or process of the extradition request. However, the most disturbing aspect of the extradition system as I see it is that Australia’s involvement with an extradited person ends the moment they are extradited.
Also during the inquiry into the extradition treaty with the UAE, an officer from the Attorney-General’s Department stated the following:
There is no formal regime for follow-up reflected in our treaties or reflected in our practice. When it comes to extradition of Australian nationals, Australia has consular responsibilities and has the ability—and in practice it does this—to follow up the situation of the person who is being returned. However, when you have a circumstance whereby someone might be travelling through Australia and is sought for extradition, say, from the country in which they are a citizen, we do not have a mechanism in which we actually continue to check the prison conditions in which the person is being kept or continue to check on the processes that have been undertaken. In effect, Australia accepts the undertaking of the relevant country and that is where it stands.
In its treaties report No. 91, including the extradition treaty with the United Arab Emirates, JSCOT made a number of recommendations with the intention of seeing a process established to monitor the trial status, health and conditions of detention of people extradited from Australia. The government did not accept these recommendations on the grounds that, inter alia:
… … …
During JSCOT’s inquiry into the extradition treaty with India, the Attorney-General’s Department reiterated the government’s response and added:
With regard to the claim that requiring information from a treaty partner concerning the fate of the extradited person would be ‘an administrative burden that would hinder the operation of a treaty party’s judicial system’, I believe this is significantly overstated when you consider that Australia assists with an average of 17 extraditions per year. So, if in 17 cases we ask for brief annual information for two or three years following the extradition about what happened in the trial, whether the person was acquitted or convicted, and the place and conditions of their detention, I fail to see how this could conceivably constitute an administrative burden that would hinder a country’s judicial system.
During the hearing, an officer from the Attorney-General’s Department also suggested that if we were to have a requirement for countries to provide information after the extradition, it would be pointless because we would have to take countries at their word or involve ourselves in burdensome monitoring. In my view this is not borne out by experience. Being required to report makes countries more attentive to due process. Many successful campaigns by Amnesty International on behalf of political prisoners are a testament to the fact that knowing you are being watched is an incentive to better behaviour.
With regard to the department’s argument that a follow-up mechanism would somehow infringe on that other country’s sovereignty, I note that whenever a country enters into an international treaty it is willingly giving up a part of its sovereignty. Indeed, a request by another country to extradite a person from Australia is also an infringement of Australia’s sovereignty, involving considerable time and expense for Australia. Why should we not require certain information from that country in return? The fact that something has not been done before is a poor argument against good policy.
In its report No.110, JSCOT has rejected the department’s arguments, as I have just outlined, and confirmed its support for the principle and practice of follow-up and monitoring. The committee recommended that new and revised extradition agreements should explicitly include a requirement for monitoring the follow-up of the cases of extradited persons. The committee noted that monitoring extradited persons would be a means of mitigating the risks associated with a no-evidence standard.
I strongly believe that the rising trend in extradition arrangements towards the no-evidence standard, in combination with the absence of any follow-up and monitoring, has the potential to undermine the positive trend towards greater international accountability and transparency and respect for human rights. It is now common for international human rights and environmental treaties to contain mechanisms for follow-up and monitoring. As the chair of JSCOT, the member for Wills, said in presenting report No.110 to the parliament:
Given the immense amount of work involved in any extradition, it does not seem unreasonable to ask countries to tell us, for example a year later, what happened to the extradited person. Are they in jail serving a sentence? Were they executed? Did they disappear? It is not unreasonable for us to simply ask what became of them.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hayes) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Ms Annette Ellis:
That the House take note of the report.
Today it gives me some pleasure and ambivalence, in one sense, to speak on this bill, and I will explain the ambivalence and then explain the pleasurable parts of this bill. This is a report on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 and it was carried out by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, of which I am a member. I compliment the authors of the report—the staff of the committee—for their hard work, as indeed I compliment my fellow members. I was ill for part of the compiling of this and I think they have delivered a very good report.
This report is about prescribing the process for selecting and dismissing the Chief Minister and ministers, as well as determining their roles and responsibilities, on Norfolk Island. In fact, most of this, other than a few sections on the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island, is about Norfolk Island. It establishes a no-confidence motion process for the Chief Minister. It allows the Norfolk Island Administrator to have greater access to a range of advice when bills come before him for assent. It allows the Governor-General and the minister responsible for territories to take a more active role in the introduction and passage of Norfolk Island legislation. It talks about reform of the voting system of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and providing more certainty about when elections are held. It establishes a customised and proportionate financial framework which provides for responsible management of public moneys and public property, preparation of budgets, financial reporting, annual reports and procurement. It provides for the appointment by the Commonwealth of a financial officer for Norfolk Island should that be required; the appointment of the Commonwealth Auditor-General to conduct audits of Norfolk Island, as he would of other government agencies; amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act which will confer on the AAT a merits review jurisdiction for specific decisions of the Norfolk Island legislature; and amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to apply on Norfolk Island. It also allows the Commonwealth Ombudsman to assume functions on Norfolk Island and to become the Norfolk Island Ombudsman. Norfolk Island public sector agencies will also be required to adhere to information privacy provisions in the same manner as the Australian government public sector agencies on the mainland.
A lot of those are eminently sensible matters but, as this report reveals, they have been matters of some contention for the people of Norfolk Island. I think it would be fair to say that there has not always been a happy relationship between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island. It has never gone into really bad territory, but the 2,000-odd people on Norfolk Island take on a huge responsibility in running the government. The Norfolk Island government not only assumes the responsibilities of a territory government in the absence of the state but also assumes the responsibilities of a territory government and the local government obligations that apply to an island of that size. So it has a dual role and, as such, it is a very responsible role.
It has always been my contention that the Commonwealth has been too harsh with Norfolk Island over the years. Some of my colleagues on both sides of the House do not agree with me on that. Whether we like it or not, the formation of Norfolk Island came about when the Pitcairn Islanders in the 1850s petitioned Queen Victoria for a new home. They were granted the old penal colony of Norfolk Island, and the bulk of the population moved there.
Mr Adams interjecting
Order! Please keep your comments through the chair.
I think that has always been a matter of contention. I do not want to argue the case one way or the other, other than to say that the spirit of the thing was that Queen Victoria, who was the supremo of this part of the world at the time this unusual event occurred, when the Pitcairn Islanders had outlived the resources of their island, gave them residency on Norfolk Island. Over the years various forms of government have developed. Norfolk Island has been under the jurisdiction of New South Wales, Tasmania and New Zealand, and back to New South Wales; more recently, it has been under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. They have been pushed from pillar to post but it has always been my contention that the spirit of letting Norfolk Islanders have an independent lifestyle was inherent in Queen Victoria’s actions. Most Australian governments have observed that, not necessarily to a great extent but to some extent. I feel that, now that we are proposing a reformation of some of the laws and processes of Norfolk Island, we should take into account that spirit of allowing Norfolk Islanders an independent lifestyle and not overburden them with Australian control and bureaucracy.
I, for one, think it would be an outrage to reduce Norfolk Island, as some people suggested a few years ago, to being a shire council of New South Wales or something of that nature. I do not think that that would be acceptable. I just want to put that on the record, because I think the Commonwealth could do a bit more than it has done in the past for Norfolk Island, irrespective of whether it pays tax. Forget this perennial argument that, because it does not pay tax and it is a tax haven, it is not entitled to this or that. Any outback town in western New South Wales, western Queensland, Western Australia or wherever, regardless of what they return to Commonwealth revenue by way of taxation, whether it be a lot or a little, would not be denied a hospital or some major facility such as that if it were needed. The island runs a very good hospital there, but it is old and needs replacing. My view is that the Commonwealth should kick-start things like that. I do not think that the island should be indulged, but I think a few things should be put right. Another thing that offends me is—
Mr Adams interjecting
Let us not get down into that sort of stuff. I always like to take an optimistic view of people. When Norfolk Island’s airport needs resealing periodically, companies are brought in from New Zealand and Australia to do that. When that happens I think the Commonwealth should take the opportunity, while they have the hot mix and all the various screenings and things that you need to do roadworks and runway works, to upgrade a number of streets on the island. In fact, an offer was made some years ago by one of the companies that, for another $1 million, they would do work on most of the streets. Because, let us face it, it is a very difficult thing to do bitumen work on a little island, with a population of only 2,000 people, or 3,000 if you want to count the tourists at a peak period.
I wanted to put those things on the record at the beginning, because I, as a member of this committee and as an Australian, tend to think that we should consider Norfolk Island as our third territory. We talk about six states and two territories, but I would prefer that we talked about six states and three territories. We acknowledge Norfolk Island as one of our territories. We respect its independence as a territory to do certain functions of government and we do not interfere any more than we need to.
But, having said that, I share a lot of the recommendations of this report. One recommendation is that, once the Norfolk Island parliament meets, it should elect a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker, which has to take place for the good running of the government, and the next thing it should do is appoint a Chief Minister. I agree with that because, as it does not have a well-developed party system, nor would it be appropriate to have a well-developed party system where you have only 2,000 or 3,000 people involved, it has to meet to decide who will be the leader. It will not necessarily be the leader of the biggest political party on the island. It establishes that the nine elected members recognise someone as a leader.
That person then appoints his ministers, as would the premiers and the chief ministers of the other states and territories, whereas, under the old system, they were all elected. The Commonwealth recognises the right of Norfolk Island to carry out the same procedures as the other states and territories, and I think that is a good thing. I see that my colleague opposite agrees with me on that. Although it is not specifically laid down in this report, I also think it is fair enough that we should have a more clearly defined method for elections. The island uses the Illinois system, which has its good points and bad points. But I think it should be more in keeping with what exists on the mainland as part of the general Australian experience. As such, it should be tailored to that island to give a good result and reflect what the people of the island feel about the nine people they want to elect.
There will be a provision—it is recommended in this report—for a financial officer if that is required. Sometimes in a small territory like this you lack a skill in your government. It is fair enough that Norfolk Island should be able to ask for—or the Commonwealth should insist; whichever is the case—a financial officer should it be required.
The appointment of the Commonwealth Auditor-General to be the Auditor-General for Norfolk Island is also a good measure. No-one should object to that. There are amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act so that the AAT merits review jurisdiction should apply on the island. Freedom of information should be available. Far from these things denigrating the authority of the island, I think they enhance it. I think they say, ‘Hey, you’re up there now.’
It is good to see the Minister for Home Affairs in here, because he has done quite well with this report. It has raised the tenor of the thing and given the islanders a greater deal of recognition. I think the move with the Commonwealth Ombudsman is also a good one.
There is one other provision I would like to talk about. I hope the minister will insist on this with his department. One of the things that has dogged the relationship between Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth, that has dogged progress on the island, has been the slow response from the Australian bureaucracy even to matters that are purely administrative in nature. To have to wait six months for bills to be approved by the Commonwealth is a bit weak. To some extent it takes from Norfolk Island a measure of the true meaning of self-government.
Keeping the ministry to four and the backbench to four, with a speaker, also reflects a separation of powers that has long been required. (Time expired)
I commend the honourable member for Hinkler for his speech on the advisory report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. I know his long-ranging commitment to Norfolk Island. He has done a lot of work on the external territories committee for a long period of time. I know his concern about making sure that we do not change things on the island. I differ with him slightly about the taxation side of it, but I agree with him that we do not want to take away the assembly. I do not think that is the correct direction.
The Minister for Home Affairs has done a good job in working through and discussing matters with the Chief Minister and others. Our committee has been there and has produced this report. Our committee has, over the years, brought down many reports that seek change. Some of them are addressed in this bill, which deals with transparency, right to appeal and administrative law issues which are costly if you have to set them up in a small community. It still leaves the assembly there to deal with its own affairs, while making it into a more Westminster-type system. There will now be one member of a political party elected to the assembly who can claim to be the Leader of the Opposition there. So there is a movement in that direction.
But Norfolk is sort of governed by committee. I do not think that is a council process; I think the executive should make decisions and stand by and sell its decisions, as we do in this parliament, and oppositions or others can say why they do not think that is right. I see that situation emerging and I see it as a good process. Accountability and transparency in small decision-making areas with small councils—the member for Hinkler represents some and I do too—is always difficult. Sometimes you have to be brave to make decisions in some of those areas if you think something is particularly right.
So this is a good direction and I commend the minister and the people in the Attorney-General’s Department who have done some work in the area. Our committee worked pretty hard to make sure that the islanders and government had their opportunity to put submissions to us, and we have dealt with several of their issues within our report. I think we are really getting there. During the term of the last government there was a recommendation and a cabinet submission to wipe them out as an authority. That did not pass and we have now got to this stage. I think we are going in the right direction.
The report before the parliament also deals with the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 to provide some vesting mechanisms for functions under the Western Australian law and how they apply to the Indian Ocean territories, leading to greater efficiency in the administration of service delivery arrangements. This goes to the point that the member for Hinkler made about having three territories. We would have to have a couple more if Christmas Islanders sought to come to a parliamentary arrangement over the years as well; and, of course, we have got Antarctica. I do not know if the leader of the Antarctic mission down there who has the responsibility of governing, with the laws and employment issues of the Antarctic division, wants it to be called—although we do call it such—a territory, but it throws up other issues to do so.
The report is certainly an accumulation of many visits and lots of discussion, and some of those discussions helped move it forward. The islanders do, I think, sometimes get a little locked into their ways. Being a Tasmanian, I know that this is the way of islanders—that you can go inward and not outward. However, it is often important to look outward on an island to find solutions and also to make sure that you are keeping up with the rest of the world. Speaking broadly, I think they might need to do that more in regard to some of their views.
There are some good jobs in this parliament, and I am sure that the member for Hinkler would agree that there are sometimes bad ones. Enduring hostile public meetings as a member of parliament is not all that good, but visiting Norfolk Island is always one of the pleasures of being on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. It is a magnificent island and a beautiful place with delightful people. It is also, of course, enormously important in the history of our nation, and those of us who have had ancestors there feel some connection to it. After the first settlement of Norfolk Island closed in 1813 all the people on Norfolk Island were moved to New Norfolk, which is in the electorate of Lyons, or Norfolk Plains, which is my home now, and the northern midlands. So those connections with my ancestry are big and strong.
Of course, Tasmania governed Norfolk Island for some years along with New Zealand, and there was a very interesting situation regarding the power and politics, and in particular the location of the bishop’s see, of the Anglican Church that looked after Norfolk Island over the years. There was a mistake of latitude on one occasion and it ended up in New Zealand. The Bishop of New Zealand had half the island and I think someone else had the other half, which caused a few problems. But maybe they wanted to visit the island and enjoy the beauty of it.
The culture of the island is very nice, but it is not the stereotype of the South Seas, and I don’t think they should go there with that view. It has a different history. Its flora is not the palm tree; it is the beautiful Norfolk pine. That was the reason Captain Cook, when he landed there, wrote in his journal about the Norfolk pines being used for ships. He wrote too about being to use the flax that he saw growing there. Unfortunately, neither worked out very well for the British Navy or the future settlement. It has been a part of Australia since 13 weeks after the first settlement at Sydney Cove and it is a magnificent piece of Australia. I recommend that every Australian should visit it.
The governance of the island, as I have said, is by an assembly backed up by an administrator of the Australian government, with the current federal member of Canberra, Annette Ellis, being the member of that area. That is another matter to tidy up that is mentioned in the report. Anyone that lives there as an Australian citizen can name their electorate. That disperses the electoral opportunities for the island. One recommendation is that we bring everybody into the one federal electorate under this recommendation, and that is probably a good thing.
One of the issues the island has is waste management—dealing with its waste, and getting some waste off the island and transporting it somewhere. I first came across this when I was on the treaties committee. I thought that we as a nation would not have any problems the dumping at sea treaty, but someone said we did have because there was an issue in Norfolk with what was put into the sea. Eradicating Argentine ants has become a real issue for them. They are working hard, but it is a small island and it is difficult to deal with that sort of pest. Water quality and the findings that have just come forward is also a real issue. There are also issues around the absence of worker’s compensation protocols and applications of the Trade Practices Act and other Commonwealth legislation which would help give some people opportunities to state their case and deal with issues in which they have concerns. These, I think, will be picked up through the legislation which is before the parliament.
The committee noted in its report its deep concern about the findings of the water assessment report on Norfolk Island. The health of Norfolk Island’s natural waterways is poor and in places contaminated. There were other environmental issues raised. They were of considerable and sufficient seriousness for the committee to urge the government of Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth to take immediate action to resolve them as they certainly pose serious threats to the health and safety of residents and, of course, to visitors to the island. With only 2,000 residents, it is always difficult to deal with issues like water quality, and it can take a lot of intellectual rigour to find solutions. Water comes from aquifers and local bores, which are used throughout, but sanitary issues are not dealt with adequately. I think the Commonwealth government put the last scheme in, and the honourable member for Hinkler probably remembers and knows more about that than I do.
One of the submissions from the Norfolk Island government proposed the establishment of a working group of officials from Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth to determine suitable ways forward and asked that outcomes be modelled, like in the ombudsman process, that successfully incorporate requirements of the Commonwealth ombudsman to deal with some of the complaint issues that are continuing to come forward on the island.
Like the member for Hinkler, I believe that there are lots of opportunities for moving forward. I am very interested to see Norfolk Island look at solar opportunities into the future to bring down their diesel costs, which are pretty steep. The Commonwealth could certainly assist with wind and solar issues, which would be one way of bringing down the costs. Island economies are always looking for ways to do that. Being from an island, I have made a study over the years of transport issues. Dealing with those sorts of issues on an island is always difficult, but I am sure that we will get there. I would say to Norfolk Islanders, with my apologies to John Donne: ‘No community is an island entire of itself. Every group is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, the country is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee—Norfolk Island.’
I commend the bill to the House and commend the minister for his work in getting us to this stage after a long period of time and with lots of committee reports.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hayes) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Brendan O’Connor:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010. This bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate end dates for three concessional items in schedule 4, which deals with concessional rates of duty. The bill contains three amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Two of these amendments relate to the import concessions for the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. The third amendment provides a mechanism to reduce the general rate of duty for certain goods that were not of a kind used as components in passenger motor vehicles.
Item 53C of schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 provides a mechanism to reduce the rate of customs duty from 10 per cent to five per cent for certain goods entering Australia on or after 1 January 2005. These goods are non-passenger motor vehicle goods that are classified to the same tariff classifications as passenger motor vehicle, PMV, parts and components. The rate of customs duty applicable to passenger motor vehicle parts and components was 10 per cent. On 1 January this year the rate of customs duty on PMV parts and components fell to five per cent, making item 53C of schedule 4 redundant from that date. As the proposed amendment to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 will insert an end date of 31 December 2009 and hence have a retrospective commencement, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills examined the proposed amendment and made the following comments in relation to it:
As a matter of practice, the Committee draws attention to any bill that seeks to have retrospective impact and will comment adversely where such a bill has a detrimental effect on people.
These items relate to the commencement and completion dates of a mechanism in schedule 4, part III, item 53C of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to reduce the general rate of customs duty from 10 per cent to five per cent for certain goods for home consumption. They initially appear to have a retrospective effect because clause 2, item 2 provides that the commencement date of schedule 1, item 1 is 14 December 2009 and schedule 1, item 1 provides for a commencement date of the mechanism of 1 January 2005 and a completion date of 31 December 2009. However, there is no detrimental result because this is essentially a technical amendment giving effect to Customs Notice (No.3) 2009, published in Special Commonwealth Gazette S213 of 14 December 2009, and in it the committee notes from the explanatory memorandum the general rate of the relevant customs duty fell five per cent from 1 January 2010.
As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a relatively dry bill. I will continue to speak about the Clothing and Household Textile Building Innovative Capability Program. On 12 May 2009, the government announced a retargeted textile clothing and footwear assistance package from 2009-10 to the year 2015-16. Under the package, the Clothing and Household Textile Building Innovative Capability Program would replace the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Post 2005 Scheme from the scheme’s 2010-11 program year. The new package redirected $55 million towards innovation, mainly to the clothing and household textile sectors, with $25 million in additional funding.
The package also included a new Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Capability Program to support innovative capability in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. As recommended in the review of the textile, clothing and footwear industries by Professor Roy Green, Building innovative capability, the new package would be partially funded by discontinuing the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Product Diversification Scheme and not proceeding with the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Supply Chain Opportunities Program. The product diversification scheme applied to the clothing and finished textiles sectors and was legislated to continue until 30 June 2017. The principal legislation implementing the new textile, clothing and footwear assistance package, the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Amendment (Building Innovative Capability) Bill 2010, was passed by the Senate on 18 March this year with two amendments which were agreed by the House of Representatives on the same day.
The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Expanded Overseas Assembly Provision Scheme commenced on 9 June 1999 and provides assistance through duty concessions to firms that assemble clothing and footwear overseas from predominantly Australian made fabric and leather and then import them back into the Australian market. Since the scheme began, the duty or revenue forgone has totalled $40 million, with annual duty forgone of approximately $3 million. The scheme was scheduled to expire in 2005 and was extended under the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Post 2005 Assistance Scheme announced by the Howard government in November 2003. However, there has been only limited use of the scheme in recent years as TCF tariffs have fallen and the scheme is scheduled to conclude on 30 June this year. In his review of the textile clothing and footwear industry, Professor Green gave the following assessment of the scheme:
It has generated a pull-through of Australian-made fabric and leather for firms assembling clothing and footwear offshore and bringing them back for domestic consumption. However, because of the reducing rate of tariffs for the finished product, the value of the scheme is declining.
From 1 January this year, two different tariff rates apply across a range of TCF goods: 10 per cent for clothing and for certain finished and household textiles—these items of course make up the bulk of TCF imports—and five per cent for cotton sheeting, woven fabrics, sleeping bags, table linen, tea towels, carpets, footwear, textile yarns, sewing threads and finished leather. The opposition supports the measures that have been proposed in this bill.
in reply—I would like to thank the member for Stirling for his contribution to the debate and for his support for the bill. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that insert or vary end dates for three concessional items in schedule 4. Successful passage of this bill through the parliament will enable the incorporation of these amendments in the customs tariff to give effect to recent government decisions and to provide certainty to importers.
The cessation of the Expanded Overseas Assembly Provisions Scheme and the early cessation of the Product Diversification Scheme implement a component of the government’s TCF innovation package, as announced in the 2009-10 budget. This package will provide assistance to the textile, clothing and footwear industry through grants rather than through a combination of grants and duty concessions. Importers in the Australian industry producing TCF goods are aware of the pending changes through budget announcements and through advice from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
Concessional items 61 and 73 in the customs tariff give effect to duty concessions under these schemes. The items are therefore no longer required and are being end dated. For item 61, the end date is 30 June this year. For item 73, the end date is 30 June 2011. While importers will no longer be able to earn duty credits under the Product Diversification Scheme after 30 June 2010, the end date of 30 June 2011 for item 73 will provide importers with an additional 12 months to use those credits.
Item 53C in schedule 4 of the customs tariff provided a mechanism to reduce the general rate of customs duty from 10 per cent to five per cent for certain goods that were not of a kind used in passenger motor vehicles. However, when the customs duty for motor vehicle components fell from 10 per cent to five per cent on 1 January this year, item 53C became redundant. The insertion of an end date of 31 December 2009 in item 53C was previously given effect through Customs Notice (No.3) 2009 and the tabling of Customs Tariff Proposal No.1 (2010). I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010. Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, significant efforts have been made around the world to improve transport security. Consistent with this, the former coalition government made ongoing efforts to ensure that Australia had a security regime that was suitable for protection against potential terrorist threats and attacks. The original introduction of the Aviation Transport Security Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act was part of these ongoing efforts.
I will talk about the aviation industry in the first instance. International and domestic aviation is vitally important for all Australians. It connects us with each other and, of course, with the rest of the world. This is particularly important considering one has to travel approximately 4,000 kilometres from east to west, a fact of which members from Western Australia are very much aware. Our aviation industry is also a central component of our economy.
The attempted terrorist attack on a flight bound for the United States from Europe on Christmas Day last year indicated to the United States, but also to Australia, that we are in need of stronger measures to prevent unlawful interference with aviation. We need to acknowledge the contribution that aviation makes to Australia’s overall economy. Steady economic growth, particularly during the years of the previous coalition government, have increased tourism and made for a more profitable airline sector, which in turn has driven the expansion of Australia’s aviation sector.
In the 2007-08 financial year, over 49 million passengers travelled on Australian domestic airlines. It is also very important to note that regional airlines carried 5.8 million passengers, a figure which represents an increase of 11 per cent over the year 2006. Regional airlines and regional airports are an important part of Australian aviation’s history and future. A healthy aviation sector is vital for our ongoing prosperity and ongoing economic growth.
Alongside the aviation industry, Australia’s maritime industry is equally critical to the economic prosperity of Australia. Australia relies on sea transport for 99 per cent of our exports. A substantial proportion of our domestic freight also depends on coastal shipping. The former coalition government implemented a maritime security regime to help safeguard Australia’s maritime transport system and offshore facilities from terrorism and unlawful interference. Under this regime, all security regulated ports, port facilities, offshore facilities, port and offshore service providers and ships undertake security assessments and implement security plans to address identified risks.
Following on from September 11, the international community resolved to implement a system to secure the maritime transport sector against the threat of terrorism. The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, ISPS, developed by the International Maritime Organisation in December 2002 was the result. The coalition developed the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003 to implement the ISPS Code in Australia. Both the ISPS Code and the act came into effect on 1 July 2004.
In 2005, the act was extended and renamed the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The amended act and regulations under it established the legislative basis for also improving security plans for offshore oil and gas facilities. International developments and a number of reviews have led to changes and refinements in the legislation underpinning the maritime security regime.
The Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The Aviation Transport Security Act amendments are designed to increase the flexibility of the aviation transport security framework to rapidly respond to an aviation security incident. The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act amendments, among other things, give or allow for increased powers to various maritime security officials for various purposes.
The Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 seeks to introduce new security arrangements for civil aviation and passenger ships. The amendments were announced as a response to the National Security Adviser’s review of aviation security, following the attempted terrorist attacks on the US-bound flight on Christmas Day last year, which I alluded to in my opening comments. The bill proposes to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 in the following ways.
The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 amendments change the process of listing prohibited items. Currently items are proscribed under regulation. It is proposed to empower the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to issue, as a legislative instrument, a notice specifying a list of prohibited items. The effect of this would be to speed the process of amending and updating the list. The notice would be a disallowable instrument. Some examples of items currently on the prohibited items list are meat cleavers, aerosol containers, golf clubs, letter openers and handcuffs. The maximum penalty for being in unauthorised possession of a prohibited item will remain 20 penalty units, which currently stands at $2,200 or two years imprisonment. The government has stated in the explanatory memorandum that enabling the prohibited items list to be amended by legislative instrument, rather than by regulation, will allow this list to remain responsive to emerging threats to aviation security while preserving parliamentary scrutiny via the usual disallowance procedure.
The second amendment to the act is to enable the secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to delegate any of his or her functions to an SES employee in the Attorney-General’s Department in preparation for the establishment of a Commonwealth incident coordinator within the Attorney-General’s Department from 1 July this year.
Amendments to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act are as follows. They will allow operators of Australian ships to apply for an exemption from the requirement to hold a ship security plan in exceptional circumstances; allow operators of foreign flagged ships that have been granted an exemption by their flag state from holding an international ship security certificate to have that exemption observed in Australia; permit frisk searches to be conducted on passengers and crew boarding security related passenger ships; enable the appointment of security assessment inspectors to conduct security assessments of maritime industry participants; and modernise the recording media options for maritime security inspectors.
In conclusion, the coalition supports the changes that have been proposed to both of these acts. It must be said that they are relatively modest against the rhetoric in the minister’s second reading speech, although we have to expect that from the government. There is a mass of rhetoric and then very modest outcomes. In particular, the minister quoted the counterterrorism white paper. It read:
The threat of terrorism to Australia is real and enduring. It has become a persistent and permanent feature of Australia’s security environment.
This is at odds with his announcement in December that it was common sense to relax security in favour of reducing waiting time for passengers.
Despite the confusion that the minister’s various announcements have created as to the government’s approach to transport security, these measures are not controversial from the opposition’s perspective and the bill, accordingly, has our support. It is integral to continuing to improve national maritime and aviation security and making the necessary amendments to do so, particularly in relation to emerging threats. The coalition recognises that threats to our security are increasingly complex and unpredictable and that we must get on the front foot with a coordinated and uncompromising approach to protecting our maritime borders and our aviation spaces. Ultimately, it is of vital importance to Australia that our maritime and aviation security measures are amended to ensure that we are best able to respond to changes in our overall security environment, and thus these modest proposals have the support of the opposition.
The Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 makes important amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. These changes are designed to strengthen security arrangements in both the aviation and maritime fields and, as such, have the support of the coalition. In relation to civil aviation, the changes to the aviation legislation are in response to the review of aviation security after the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day on a flight in the United States. The first amendment allows the responsible minister, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, to issue prohibited items lists by legislative instruments. It also gives the department’s secretary the ability to delegate their powers and responsibilities to a senior executive service officer in the Attorney-General’s Department. This is designed to move towards the introduction, in July 2010, of the position of Commonwealth incident coordinator in the Attorney-General’s Department.
I think we are all familiar with the announcement of the relaxation—albeit the small relaxation—but there are have inconsistencies across aviation security in this country. As a frequent traveller, as we all are, one inconsistency that puzzles me relates to umbrellas. If you go through Brisbane Airport or Canberra Airport and you have an umbrella, you have to take it out and put it up. But if you go through other airports in Australia you do not have to. It is just bizarre that there is not a common set of guidelines at the security checkpoints at airports.
On security checkpoints, I am pleased that department officials are here today. At the main security entry in terminal 3, the Qantas terminal, at Sydney airport there are three security scanners. The scanner that is closest to the city—I guess it is best described that way—is far more sensitive than the other two scanners. When you talk to the staff, they say: ‘Yes, we know. We’ve known for two years. We’ve been telling the department for two years, but they keep saying to us that it is adjusted just the same as every other scanner.’ If you stand there and watch the passengers going through, you will see that that is not the case. That is how I picked it up, because I go through many airport scanners and I do not go off, but I go off every time I go through that scanner. Now I do not go through that scanner or, if I am forced to go through it and I go off, I do not take my shoes off, because my shoes do not have metal in them. I just go through the other scanner and get through and I do not go off. I know it is probably a small point, but that causes a lack of confidence in our scanning system. The sensitivity of each of those scanners should be the same, otherwise the staff could become a bit lax because they know one scanner is more sensitive than the others and they might not worry if it goes off. So I just ask the department to have a look at that and once and for all fix the problem.
I am also puzzled by plastic knives on aeroplanes. As you travel around the world, there are plenty of airlines that have steel knives. We all know that. Steel knives are actually allowed on aeroplanes flying in Australian airspace as well, on aircraft coming in from overseas. I am puzzled why we have plastic knives and steel forks, because it does not seem to be consistent with the security risk. There are many other security risks on aeroplanes. I am not going to canvass them now because it would be irresponsible to do so, but I know that, if I really wanted to do something, if I were a terrorist, I could do it in the context of what is currently allowed on aeroplanes. We should be careful about that.
I am pleased to see the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government here. Minister, you and your department ought to have a look at this issue with aviation security identification cards. I say this not as a criticism. I say it to be helpful, because we are all of a mind to make sure we have the best security that we can. All staff that operate air side at an airport are required to wear and display an ASIC tag at all times. That is proper. You get an ASIC if you do not have a criminal history and you meet the security criteria. But what is interesting is, if you want to be a private pilot, to obtain a student pilot’s licence you sign a form and you pay an administration fee. No flight lessons are required to have a student pilot licence. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can go and get a student pilot licence, sign a form, pay a fee and you do not have to fly. But that automatically entitles you to an ASIC without any security checks. All you do is get a student pilot licence, apply for an ASIC and you receive it in the mail six weeks later. There is no security check on the ASIC that is given to a student pilot. It is CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, who manage this process. Minister, I think you ought to have a look at that apparent flaw in our security processes. The requirement to have the security check should be consistent across the application processes, in whatever situation ASICs are issued.
In relation to regional aerodromes, the government is moving to fix a problem that exists there. It is not fixed yet, but I recognise that the government is moving to do that.
Minister, just another matter—
I ask the member to refer all his remarks through the Deputy Speaker’s chair. You are constantly referring directly to the minister.
I would ask the minister to consider this: every time there is a security upgrade there are additional charges that go to the airport operators, and the airport operators have to cover those charges from airlines—and that is okay—but because it is a highly competitive business and because airlines are under huge cost pressures, it is very difficult for the airport operators to reach a negotiated settlement on these charges. I have seen at one airport that there is a huge negotiation process going on over a 1c difference in what the charge should be. It is that fine. So the airport says to me, ‘Perhaps the government could assist in this process by finding a way that makes it easier for airports and air operators to be able to have a mechanism to agree on how these charges are passed on, because it is nobody’s fault that we have got to pass on the charges. The passengers have got to pay, we all recognise that, but there is just this argy-bargy that goes on because there is a change in security requirements because the government says we should do this.’ Perhaps the minister could have a look at how that all operates and help both the airline industry and the airport industry to make it easier to allow these charges to be passed on. Thank you for the opportunity to make my contribution this afternoon.
I thank those members who have participated in the debate on the Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010. This is a bill that further strengthens the aviation and maritime security frameworks that are set up under the Australian Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. Amendments to both of these acts will make important changes to improve the flexibility and responsiveness of Australia’s transport security regime.
I welcome the fact that there is bipartisan support for this bill, but I will also make some comments on the contributions of the two coalition speakers to this debate. The first speaker, the member for Stirling, opposed the government’s changes which came into effect on Christmas Day last year making common-sense changes to what will be allowed on aircraft—specifically, the fact that metal cutlery will be allowed to be used on Australian aircraft. He argued that this presented a confused and inconsistent position from the government. It does nothing of the sort. The confused and inconsistent position of those opposite was highlighted by the fact that there were two coalition speakers and one said these changes were a bad thing and the other said they were a good thing. The member for Herbert, who spoke immediately after the member for Stirling, said—obviously not aware of the changes in regulations that the government has introduced—that the banning of metal cutlery, ‘Doesn’t seem to be consistent with a security risk.’ He was right and the member for Stirling was wrong. The government’s changes to the prohibited items list last year as part of the aviation white paper were common-sense changes based upon advice from the appropriate security agencies on risk.
We know that a range of items which were on the prohibited list, including nail clippers and other items, were simply a distraction for people working on the front line of security at airports, who need to identify real risk and make sure that we keep them out of our airports. We need to concentrate the effort and energy of those people working on the front line, upon whom passengers rely to keep them safe, by having a common-sense approach to this. This change is consistent with what happens in the United States of America and Europe; indeed, even the security-conscious country of Israel allows metal cutlery on planes. And we have made that change.
I object completely to the member for Stirling coming in here and trying to play cheap, inconsistent politics on national security issues. I have a great responsibility and I take my obligation seriously. I rely on expert advice. Expert advice must be followed in this area; expert advice, not politics, must dictate action. That is why we introduced the changes to the prohibited items list last year based upon risk. The fact that the only speaker from the coalition on this bill today put exactly the opposite position shows their inconsistency on these items.
But there is another area of inconsistency that I would ask the member for Stirling to consider, and that is the new regulation restricting access to the cockpits of aircraft, which was gazetted yesterday. This regulatory change was made last year and it was disallowed by the Senate. We are reintroducing this regulation. I call upon the opposition to agree to these common-sense measures to restrict cockpit access and safeguard Australian travellers based on advice from aviation security experts. As a result of the opposition’s reckless disallowance, there are currently no effective legal restrictions on who can enter the cockpit of an aircraft. It is simply unacceptable that such an important part of aviation security has been left to industry self-regulation.
By restricting access to the cockpit, the government is taking a strong, practical and common-sense approach to strengthen the last line of defence against unlawful interference with a plane. Aviation security should be a bipartisan issue but similar regulations were voted down by the opposition in the Senate in September last year. These regulations will commence on 22 May 2010. I ask the opposition to reconsider their position on this issue because access to the cockpit of a plane should be based upon operational need. That is why these regulations are important.
I thank the member for Herbert for his support in his comments about government plans to upgrade security at our regional airports. I note that in last night’s budget, as part of our $200 million aviation security package, $32 million was allocated to assist with the upgrade of security at our regional airports. I ask the member for Herbert to talk to his National Party colleagues about why they should support this change. It is a common-sense change based on advice from experts, which surely the opposition also received when it was in government.
This government is committed to ensuring our national security. The legislation before the House today contains some small but important measures towards achieving that end. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Mr Griffin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. Can I say at the outset that this bill has the coalition’s support and it is not my intention to delay the Main Committee for too long today. The bill contains five minor amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Before I address the bill I would like to make a few comments, particularly in relation to my discussions with leaders of the ex-service community, about the workings of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.
I would like to place on record my appreciation for the leaders of our ex-service community. These leaders work very hard on behalf of their members to achieve a better deal for veterans. I look forward to continuing to work with them over the coming months, particularly as we move into congress season. The Tasmanian RSL will hold their state congress this Friday in George Town and I look forward to speaking there about the issues that are important to the veteran community. I also want to say that I will be speaking further to ex-service community leaders today and tomorrow about the federal budget and I will have more to say on this topic, particularly in relation to specific measures that were announced, during the budget debate in coming weeks.
Over the parliamentary recess I have been able to meet with many ex-service community leaders. I especially want to speak about a visit I had to Adelaide a few weeks ago where I met a very determined advocate for the veteran community. I will not name this person; he knows who he is. Needless to say, this person is literally available at the other end of a telephone to provide whatever support and assistance is necessary to veterans, particularly those returning from recent conflicts in Timor-Leste, Afghanistan and Iraq. A valuable insight into the emerging needs of the veteran community meant that this meeting certainly was an important one. I also had an opportunity to meet with tomorrow’s veterans—those men and women currently serving in the Australian Defence Force—as a participant in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. I urge and encourage any of my parliamentary colleagues who have not participated in this program to do so.
The Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010 has five provisions. Firstly, the amendment removes provisions of the VEA which relate to benevolent homes. Under the VEA, veterans in receipt of a pension through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs would have part of the pension automatically paid to the benevolent home. This provision is now redundant, with the last benevolent home closing in 1994. This change, which ensures the VEA remains a working act meeting the needs of the veteran community, brings the VEA into line with other acts of parliament which no longer refer to benevolent homes.
Labour market programs are operated by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and provide a pathway back to employment for people who need to gain new skills in order to re-enter the workforce. Under arrangements that exist for labour market programs, participants are paid to train and gain work experience. However, under arrangements in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, payments made to veterans who participate in labour market programs are treated differently. For example, under the VEA, money paid to a participant for expenses associated with training are exempt from the VEA income test. However, payments for expenses for part-time work experience are not exempt. On this basis, there is a disincentive for veterans participating in a labour market program to undertake work experience in case any reimbursement for expenses adversely affects a pension they are in receipt of. This proposed change is important in allowing more veterans to re-engage with the workforce where they choose to do so and where they require new skills, and it is welcomed by the veterans community. It provides veterans with greater flexibility in their dealings with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and makes the VEA a fairer act.
One of the more significant changes in this bill is a move to force veterans’ partners, where they are eligible, to receive a foreign pension where they are required to do so under law. I will explain this change in greater detail. Currently, a veteran’s partner who is entitled to a foreign pension is under no legal obligation to accept that pension. In many cases, the pensions are very small amounts of money. Under the changes made by this amendment, the veteran’s partner is required to access that foreign pension and report it as income under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. It is anticipated that, in the vast majority of cases, those affected by this change will be better off. Because of the cut-in point of the income test and the expected small amount of those pensions, the small number of veterans affected by this change ought to be better off. However, the coalition would like to hear from any veteran or veteran’s partner who considers they will be, or have been, directly impacted in a negative way as a result of these changes.
This is best explained by way of an example. I point out that this is illustrative and does not indicate the personal circumstances of any individuals affected by this change. For example, Mr and Mrs Jones are entitled to a service pension under the VEA. Mr Jones has qualifying service from the Vietnam War and Mrs Jones is entitled to access a British pension of approximately $20 a fortnight but, until now, has not done so. Under this proposed change, Mr and Mrs Jones are required to apply for the British pension that Mrs Jones is entitled to. When granted, Mrs Jones must notify the Department of Veterans’ Affairs that she is now in receipt of the pension. Given its small amount, Mr and Mrs Jones’s pension is unlikely to be affected, resulting in their being $20 a fortnight better off.
This amendment will also allow the partner of a veteran to receive, where eligible, a lump sum in arrears payment for the period in which they have been eligible but have not been receiving their foreign pension. Importantly, the VEA will be amended to allow greater flexibility in the calculation of that income and its effect on the receipt of future pensions from DVA. For example, in the case of Mr and Mrs Jones, Mrs Jones was entitled to access her British pension five years ago and the British government has calculated her entitlement and paid a lump sum of $2,250, taking into account inflation and exchange rates. Under the VEA income test, this one-off lump sum payment may impact on Mr and Mrs Jones’s overall service pension payments. Currently, this one-off payment which has accrued over five years will be treated as one year’s income, which may result in a reduction in Mr and Mrs Jones’s pension. However, under this amendment, Mrs Jones’s lump sum will be calculated as if it had been paid over five years and, in this case, Mr and Mrs Jones’s pension will not be affected by the payment of a lump sum and they will continue to be better off as a result of accessing the foreign pension.
It is expected that the proposed changes will better align the VEA with other, similar acts that deal with foreign pensions. We are told that they will ensure that Australia’s veterans continue to receive beneficial treatment under the VEA. I reiterate my interest in hearing from any veteran, their partner or family members about their individual circumstances if they are made worse off by this amendment.
The final amendment relates to superannuation assets that have gone ‘turtle up’, for want of a better phrase, perhaps as a result of the global financial crisis. Under this amendment, where the value of the specified superannuation asset has been frozen and the veteran is no longer able to access the asset at call, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs may in exceptional circumstances declare part of the asset disregarded for the purposes of the assets test under the VEA. However, this determination on the general asset will not apply to the deemed income rules or assets deprivation rules.
This bill is relatively minor and has the coalition’s support. Can I just indicate again my appreciation to the dedicated men and women of Border Protection Command. I was able to spend time with them during the exchange program with the ADF in late April. I hope that the work we do here on behalf of today’s veterans will flow on to provide the maximum level of assistance to our younger and future veterans.
I rise to speak in support of the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. We have just had Anzac Day. As many members of this place would know, we come across wonderful people who have served our country in times of crisis, conflict and war. We see them on Anzac Day and acknowledge their wonderful service to our community, their deeds of valour and the sacrifices made by them and their families. In our various communities within Australia and as a country we need to recognise their deeds, their heroism and their commitment to our country. Therefore, I am very sympathetic towards providing the maximum amount of assistance to veterans, and their families, to ensure that they can retire from their working lives with dignity, respect and financial security and that their widows or widowers are also treated in a decent and humane way in the future.
Veterans’ entitlements must be modern, must be equitable and must have a degree of consistency, but also there must be a benign approach with respect to their social security requirements and entitlements. Generally we will see some benefit to veterans and their families as a result of these amendments. The amendments in this legislation remove inequities between other pieces of legislation governing social security law and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, which governs entitlements given to veterans for their service. We need to make sure that any income test which is applied does not have loopholes, is consistent and has integrity, and we want to make sure that administration of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act by the government and the department shows degrees of humanity, and also consistency and stability, so that veterans have certainty about their entitlements. We need to ensure that the legislation is modern, does not lack consistency and is not redundant.
The amendments improve the law governing veterans’ entitlements in five stages. Some of them are minor and some of them are technical, but they are important nonetheless. We need to make sure that there is consistency between the Social Security Act, acts and regulations and veterans’ entitlements law. The changes improve how we govern veterans’ entitlements and they correct anomalies. As the previous speaker said, they result in a more favourable pension outcome for people and they are evidence of the government’s commitment to ensuring that veterans receive the maximum number of entitlements.
Last night the budget came down, with amendments and improvements to the law governing veterans. There are significant improvements to military funding for our defence forces as well. Currently we have military personnel overseas in the Middle East, in Iraq and, particularly, fighting on our behalf against Islamic fascism in Afghanistan. We need to make sure that the legislation governing those people is just and humane as it deals with them when they come back from those areas of conflict.
The amendments deal particularly with five aspects. The first aspect I deal with is the labour market programs. The first group of amendments deal with that. Labour market programs are administered by Centrelink on behalf of DEEWR. We are going to make sure that the legislation is up to date in its semantics, terminology and nomenclature. We want to make sure that it is consistent with the outcomes under the social security law. Under the legislation, certain payments made under labour market programs are exempt under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The amendments before the House replace redundant terms such as ‘labour force programs’ with the current term ‘labour market programs’. The amendments make sure that payments received by those people who participate cover their expenses associated with undertaking work experience under a labour market program and that those payments are exempt as income. That is a good thing from the point of view of the veterans. Such payments are exempt under social security law but not currently under the VEA, so this is an important change that will make a difference in people’s lives.
The second aspect deals with ‘benevolent homes’. I have always found this a curious term. I have heard it on numerous occasions in the past, but there is reference to it in the VEA and it refers to institutions in which a person may be placed for a prolonged period of time, according to the digest. It could apply to an adult being placed due to mental illness or a young child or person being placed for the care of that child or person. What we are doing with these changes is removing the last reference to benevolent homes. In the mid-1990s, the last remaining benevolent home ceased operation, and that was a good thing. Inmates of benevolent homes—those that are still with us—can now be found in aged-care facilities across the country. These provisions dealing with benevolent homes are therefore redundant and have been for years. They have been superseded by the legislation governing aged care, which is the Aged Care Act 1997, so the changes here simply remove redundant provisions.
The third aspect deals with foreign pensions. They deal with the requirement to claim a comparable foreign pension. The amendments require someone who is a partner of someone getting a VEA income support pension to claim a comparable foreign pension. I think that is a prudent measure. If they are entitled to do so, they should have done so by now. It adds integrity to our system and I think what we are doing here makes sense. If they claim this, it is likely their income will be greater than it currently is, notwithstanding that their claim may have other negative impacts on any VEA or other entitlements coming to that household. Partners of existing income support recipients who are entitled will be required to claim that comparable foreign pension within six months of being notified by the department that they are required to do so. I think that is sensible. I think it is quite a nationalistic approach, but I think it makes sense for the integrity of the VEA system in this country.
The fourth aspect deals with the treatment of arrears—this is quite a complicated matter—and how lump sum payments of arrears are dealt with when comparable pensions are assessed. Generally we know that pensioners are better off under social security provisions, as the amount of any arrears payment results in a debt under that legislation. That debt is generally less than any cumulative rate of reduction in income support for the following year under the VEA, so they are better off. The legislation contains loopholes under which a person receiving a service pension who receives a lump sum arrears payment of a comparable foreign pension can transfer it to a social security pension to avoid the application of the income test to the arrears payment. This loophole should be closed and it will provide a better outcome for veterans and their dependants. That is a sensible provision. It makes sure that there is a greater alignment between the social security legislation and the VEA.
The final aspect covered by this legislation deals with certain superannuation investments. The previous speaker talked about superannuation funds going belly up or turtle up—I am not quite sure how she eloquently put it, but she meant that they are no good anymore. Under section 52AA of this legislation, the minister can make a determination under the VEA that certain superannuation investments are exempt under the assets test. Such a determination could result in an investment being unintentionally exempt from provisions regarding deemed income and the deprivation of assets. That was recognised and changed back in 2006 with the social security legislation. The amendments here clarify that the provisions regarding deemed income and deprivation of assets will continue to apply to superannuation investments covered by the determination the minister might make under section 52AA.
While I am here, I will take the opportunity to commend the government on an issue of veterans’ entitlements. It deals with the Clarke review. There have been people who have been tragically exposed to nuclear testing, and their service was long unrecognised. We have in this budget provided $36 million to implement key recommendations of the Clarke review of veterans’ entitlements, which were sadly ignored by the previous government. I want to commend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for his advocacy in this regard. I have had many discussions with him about it. He is passionate about seeking justice for those veterans who have been exposed.
The benefits provided here will make a difference in the lives of people, including constituents of mine who have spoken to me about it. It is long-overdue recognition for those military personnel who have suffered. As part of the package that we have announced, $24.2 million over five years will go towards providing disability pensions, war widow or widower pensions and healthcare benefits to people who have suffered from conditions relating to their nuclear test service. Potentially 2,700 surviving veterans will benefit. Subject to any legislative changes, those benefits will apply from 2010.
I think this is a long-overdue change. It is something that I have advocated for a long time. It is something that people have talked to me about in my role as a federal member of parliament. I think, in the measures we have undertaken, they will receive a degree of justice for the work they did on behalf of us. By accepting Justice Clarke’s recommendations, we are looking after our veterans who have campaigned long and hard for many years in relation to this. They were put into situations where they were exposed to nuclear tests at Maralinga and other places such as Emu Field. Many of them suffered and many of them died.
We have taken a fair and balanced approach. We are recognising the work that they have done. We are opening up their eligibility. We are providing compensation and recognising their service. That is something that the country should have done a very long time ago. I think the government has finally done what it should have done and what previous governments should have done—that is, recognise the nature of the service and the fact that these personnel had no choice. They were put into a situation on behalf of all of us and served our country. They did what was right for our country and they were exposed. They did not know any better and finally the government has taken steps to give them a degree of justice.
I commend the minister for what he has done. I think he has shown a degree of humanity and a commitment to justice that are exemplary. I want to thank those people who have campaigned so long and hard. Veterans across the country finally will see their service recognised as non-warlike hazardous. I think, in the circumstances, their service and their campaigning should be acknowledged and applauded. I commend the legislation to the House.
Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 4.00 pm
I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. This bill is yet another in a series of bills that affect veterans and future veterans alike. This government seems to believe that tinkering on the edges of policy development and introducing administration bill after administration bill on veterans affairs issues are wholesale substitutes for policy reform. It is disappointing that I again stand here and debate yet another bill that fails to deal with the No. 1 issue that affects our veteran community, an issue that the Rudd Labor Party said prior to the 2007 election it would fix. I refer, of course, to the Rudd Labor government’s promise to fix the indexation of military superannuation pensions.
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin, is now also the Minister for Defence Personnel. There can no longer be any buck-passing between ministerial portfolios in veterans affairs or defence as to who has responsibility for defence superannuation. The matter now rests entirely in the hands of Minister Griffin. It was Minister Griffin who, prior to the last election, demanded that action be taken on military superannuation. It was Minister Griffin who said he would fix the problem. I will come to more on that later.
This bill sets out to amend certain sections of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act so that its provisions are more closely aligned to provisions found in the Social Security Act. Overall the changes are non-controversial and in general, on the advice provided by the government, will not leave any veterans worse off.
The first amendment in this bill will remove all references to benevolent homes. Benevolent homes are institutions where persons may stay for extended periods of time, such as places for the mentally ill. Traditionally a person would receive a reduced pension if they were living at a benevolent home, with the deducted portion of their pension being paid directly to the benevolent home. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Carer Pension and Other Measures) Act 1995 effectively removed the vast majority of provisions that referred to benevolent homes; however, similar changes were not made to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act because at the time there were still pensioners receiving a reduced pension on the grounds that they were residents of benevolent homes. As benevolent homes no longer exist and as there are no longer any veterans who are affected by these provisions, this bill will simply repeal from the Veterans’ Entitlements Act all references to benevolent homes.
This bill also seeks to simplify arrangements pertaining to veterans participating in labour market programs that are administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations that are designed to assist those looking to enter or re-enter the workforce. Assistance can include training for unemployed people, support services and formal vocational training, all of which are delivered by the national employment services system, Job Services Australia.
Currently veterans do not need to include any payments they receive under a labour market program in the income test if those payments cover expenses such as uniforms. However, payments they may receive for part-time work experience under a labour market program are subject to the income test. This acts as a disincentive for veterans to undertake part-time training, as the small amounts of money they would potentially receive may negatively affect their pension payments. The amendments contained within this bill will align the treatment of payments for expenses and part-time training with those contained in the Social Security Act. Simply put, this means that veterans receiving payments for undertaking part-time training as a part of a labour market program will no longer have to worry about those payments potentially affecting their pension payments.
The next amendment contained within this bill will require a veteran’s partner to claim any foreign pension to which they are entitled. This provision is based on the underlying rationale that a person who has the means to support themselves financially should utilise his or her own means or resources before receiving financial support from the public purse. This amendment will again align provisions found in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act with the Social Security Act, and will compel the partner of a veteran in receipt of a service pension or income support supplement to claim and receive any foreign pension they are entitled to receive. Although the majority of those veterans affected by this change will be better off, I echo the sentiments of my colleague the member for Greenway in stating that the coalition would like to hear from any veterans or their families who find themselves worse off under these changes.
Following on from the previous amendment regarding entitlements to foreign pensions, this bill will also amend the manner in which a lump sum foreign pension payment is treated in regard to an income test. It is important to note that foreign pensions are sometimes paid as a lump sum, particularly at the commencement of receipt of that pension, due to the time taken for the overseas agency to determine the entitlement and then process the claim. Often these lump sum payments pay an amount in arrears over a number of months or indeed years. By way of example, under current legislation, if a veteran were to receive a lump sum pension payment from a foreign source, that payment would be treated as income over one financial year even though that lump sum may have included payments in arrears for a period of two or three years or even longer. The situation would most often result in a reduction to the veteran’s pension, as a lump sum is considered a part of that person’s income under the income test. This amendment will simply ensure that any foreign pension lump sum payment is treated as income over the years for which it has been accrued and paid rather than treating it as income received during one financial year only. Whilst this amendment will likely benefit most veterans, some may incur a debt as a result of this legislative change, particularly those who receive large lump sums for a period covering more than 12 months. I would urge the government to ensure that the veterans who find themselves in this situation are given ample time to pay off this debt, as it would be totally unacceptable that any veteran should be left with a debt through no fault of their own and forced to repay it at an unreasonable rate just because of the government’s short-sightedness or lack of attention to detail.
Finally, this bill seeks to amend the provisions in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act for the disregarding of an asset. This provision will empower the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to make a determination with regard to the exclusion of an asset from the asset test where that asset has lost its value or that asset cannot be assessed. For example, if the asset is sold without an adequate return or value, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs may disregard the asset under the assets test. Furthermore, if the asset is unable to be assessed by the person, which may occur in the event of frozen superannuation assets or bankruptcy of that asset, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs may also disregard the asset under the assets test. This amendment to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act will align it with similar provisions under the Social Security Act.
On the information provided by the government to the opposition that no veteran will be worse off under this bill, the coalition support the measures contained in the bill. We believe they will help ease the administrative burden placed on veterans through aligning the aforementioned amendments with those provisions contained in the Social Security Act. However, yet again we see that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is simply tinkering around the edges with policy. Much as with the budget that was handed down last night, Minister Griffin continues to demonstrate that he is unwilling or unable to take the tough decisions. It is more talk and no action. The minister happily announced during his second reading speech on this bill that it:
This bill continues the government’s ongoing commitment to supporting Australia’s veteran community and their families and ensuring their wellbeing now and into the future.
That is the talk. As for the action, it has now been over two years since the release of the Podger review into military superannuation reform and not one word has been uttered by the Rudd Labor government. The Rudd Labor government also failed to respond to parts of the Clarke review, failed to review advocacy funding and delayed the introduction of the Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Bill 2010, a bill that many veterans are sweating on the outcome of.
Although I support this bill, it does nothing to address the core concerns of the veteran community. As the Defence Force Welfare Association pointed out in its response to last night’s federal budget, there is:
Nothing for long suffering military superannuants whose standard of living continues to deteriorate due to unfair indexation and taxation of MSBS and DFRDB superannuation pensions and the gouging of DFRDB superannuation benefits that service men and women paid for during their working lives.
In addition to that, in a situation where this government has announced that we will have a peak debt of $93.7 billion, at a time when it is spending an additional $1 billion just to bail out the Home Insulation Program, how much would the government have been able to do for our veteran community if it had managed our economy economically responsibly? How much would that $1 billion that is being spent to fix up a failed insulation program have been able to do for our veteran community?
The minister will argue that in the current economic circumstances there is nothing that they can do for the military superannuants under the MSBS or the DFRDB. I put to the government: your delay in responding to the report, which was tabled on 24 December 2007, your blatant disregard for the financial situation of those former members and current members of the military in relation to their superannuation payments and the fact that you are prepared to spend the taxes that they have paid in other means without due regard to their needs says that you have been negligent in the performance of your duty. I do not mean ‘you’ as the Deputy Speaker, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker; I mean the government, the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Veterans deserve a government that is upfront and honest with regard to its policies and promises—something the current government has failed to be on both counts.
Further, the Defence Force Welfare Association pointed out in its response last night, in addition to what I said before, that there has been:
No decision on the reclassification of the service of certain counter terrorism special operations undertaken by SAS personnel.
No decision to remove the remaining level of erosion to the value of the Veterans’ Disability Pensions nor to adjust them in line with the increase in community living standards since 1997.
Again, that has been held back because of the amount of debt created by the government, by the sheer fact that they are going to be paying $6.5 billion in interest payments to fund that debt. Again, I put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a statement that I put to the government: if the government had run their economy as the economic conservatives they said they would be, there would have been money freed up that could have been spent on our veteran community.
The wholesale changes that the veteran community were expecting after the promises made by Labor at the last election have simply failed to materialise. This government is unable to make the tough decisions and unable to undertake serious reform. That point was made clear not only in this bill but also in last night’s big-taxing, big-spending Labor budget. This year’s budget deficit of $40.8 billion, the second biggest since World War II, when combined with the continued reckless spending by the Rudd Labor government, will result in only piecemeal policies for veterans and result in legislative changes such as those contained in this bill that only tinker at the very edges of the policy reform that is really needed. As I said, veterans deserve a government that is upfront and honest with regard to its policies and promises—something that this government has failed to be on both counts. At the very least, veterans deserve a government that respects them for their past service rather than paying lip-service.
I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. The measures introduced by this bill will improve the delivery of government policy entitlements to our veterans. Members of the nation’s ex-service communities will receive substantial benefits from these measures. The bill is also about clarifying, correcting and amending legislation pertaining to veterans’ entitlements in the interests of returned servicemen and servicewomen. This is a bill that will make life easier for many. It is a continuation of this government’s ongoing commitment to the veteran community. We want to ensure that the policies, provisions and entitlements provided to our veterans and the way that these entitlements are delivered are as good as they possibly can be.
I will give a brief outline of a few of the key components of this legislation. The main provisions of this bill are intended to align the Veterans’ Entitlements Act with like provisions in the Social Security Act. The bill includes amendments that will exempt from veterans’ entitlements income test payments associated with part-time work experience under a labour market program. This measure aligns the veterans’ entitlements law with social security law and ensures the consistent treatment of these types of payments across most acts.
The bill will also amend the Veterans’ Entitlements Act so that the partner of a service pension or income support supplement claimant or recipient will be required to claim a comparable foreign pension if the partner is entitled to such a pension. This provides a consistency between the veterans’ entitlements law and the social security law, and can result in a pensioner couple receiving more income overall. These changes will provide for greater certainty in the administration of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, remove redundant provisions and correct an anomaly whereby pensioners paid under the social security law in some cases received a more favourable pension outcome than service pensioners and income support supplement recipients.
There are many veterans and their families living on the Central Coast of New South Wales who will welcome the measures laid out in the bill. The Central Coast, where my electorate of Robertson is situated, has long been a favoured retirement destination for people from Sydney and other parts. This has especially been the case in the decades since World War II. As a result, the electorate of Robertson today is home to a very large proportion of veterans, their families and dependants. As at the beginning of January 2010 there were 4,212 people living in Robertson receiving a Department of Veterans’ Affairs pension or allowance or holding a DVA treatment or pharmaceutical card. This group includes over 1,360 disability pensioners and more than 1,400 war widows.
Most of these veterans are located in the Gosford City LGA. It has by far the highest veteran population of any local government area in New South Wales. The number is exceeded by only four LGAs in South-East Queensland, making Gosford City the fifth largest concentration of veterans in Australia. They have an average age of just under 80 years. It is clear from these statistics that reforms to the way veterans’ entitlements are assessed and delivered have a direct and important impact on thousands of my constituents and their families.
There are 20 separate veteran associations represented in my electorate. These include a wide range of DVA benefit recipients, including the War Widows Guild, several RSL club branches, the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association, the ex-Prisoners of War Welfare Association and two ex-servicewomen’s associations—just to name a few. I have the great honour of being a patron to the local branch of both the National Servicemen’s Association and the Vietnam Veterans Association. I am also an honorary member of the Central Coast and Gosford branch of the World War II veterans association.
At this point I want to name Jeff Turner, president of the World War II 1939-45 veterans association Central Coast Gosford branch. Jeff approached me recently for assistance in applying for a federal volunteers grant—a small grant to assist in the purchase of computer equipment for that organisation of hardworking volunteers.
The very special thing that the World War II veterans do is engage veterans to help other veterans throughout their extended support networks. This is important to note in the context of the bill presently before the House. Being a returned serviceman or servicewoman presents many challenges to our veterans, their families and their carers, not the least of which is navigating the maze of entitlements and regulations attached to pensions and payments due to these individuals. It is not uncommon for friends and families of veterans to spend hours at a time untangling administrative issues associated with their entitlement claims. Any and all measures that simplify matters and assist veterans to access their entitlements take the burden off them, their families and their carers. That is why an organisation like the World War II veterans is so important. By linking veterans together to help each other through difficult times, advocate on each other’s behalf and provide experienced advice, these organisations are often the bedrock of the veteran community support network. I congratulate them all on their hard work and their ongoing compassion.
Another example of tireless work by veterans on behalf of other veterans is Rick Johnson from the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association. Rick is a Central Coast local and a tireless campaigner for his members. Rick has had many dealings with my office, and we have assisted to the best of our ability and struggled to do better for the lives of Australian nuclear veterans. I have worked quite closely with all these associations to ensure their concerns are brought to the attention of the minister and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
I am also very pleased to announce that in September 2009 more than $7,100 in funding was given to two veterans’ organisations on the Central Coast under the federal government’s Veteran and Community Grants program. The Veteran and Community Grants provide on the ground funding for local projects that promote health and wellbeing in the veterans community. The National Servicemen’s Association of Australia, New South Wales Branch, Gosford City sub-branch received $6,000 in funding from the Australian government to support the health and wellbeing of local ex-servicemen. This grant assisted the local nashos to conduct a bus tour for the local veterans community to the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Surprisingly, some of those members had not had that opportunity prior to this occasion. In addition to this grant, the Gosford sub-branch of the RSL received over $1,000 from the program. The sub-branch will use it to purchase equipment and resources for the Broadwater RSL day club.
Projects funded through these grants programs include initiatives that encourage veterans, war widows and widowers to learn new life skills—skills that will help them remain independent as well as provide for social activities and support for their carers. Veteran and Community Grants are available to ex-service and community organisations, veteran representative groups and private organisations that contribute to the health and welfare of the veteran community. I congratulate both of these organisations for their good work and their valuable initiatives to support Central Coast veterans.
I also take particular pride in seeing the increasing attendance at Anzac Day ceremonies across the Central Coast over the past few years. It seems that more and more young people are recognising the contribution that returned ex-servicemen have made and it is something that I think is very much appreciated by those returning.
One of the most invaluable experiences I have had as a member was to attend the Defence Force Parliamentary Program with the East Timor defence force during March of 2009. I spent five days in uniform in East Timor and went on foot patrol at night with ADF members of the International Stabilisation Force East Timor. It was certainly an eye-opener about some of the challenges and the circumstances. I did not have to face the occasion of being shot at, but even the living circumstances and the tasks that they needed to undertake showed that they were a force of high-calibre men and, on some occasions, women in this case.
I can say from my experience that they are doing a terrific job in sometimes difficult circumstances. The servicemen and servicewomen I spent time with will be the veterans of tomorrow. That is why I am pleased indeed to be speaking today in support of this bill, which will substantially improve the government’s delivery of entitlements to the veterans community. I feel confident that the reforms contained in this bill will be beneficial to all members of the defence and veterans communities in the future.
To the many veterans who live in my electorate of Robertson, I say: thank you for your contribution. You have made Australia a better place to live. Your contribution to the community of the Central Coast is equally notable. For that I am especially appreciative. I trust that the reforms of the Rudd Labor government introduced today will go some way to repaying the debt that our society owes you. I commend the bill to the House.
16:24:49
Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, it is my honour to make this contribution in your presence, you being one of Australia’s former veterans’ affairs ministers—you did a great job and you are very highly respected in the veterans’ community. I begin by informing the House that there are more of tomorrow’s veterans in my electorate than in any other electorate in Australia. Of course the reason for that is that Townsville is the home of the ready deployment force of the Australian Defence Force. Lavarack Barracks and RAAF Townsville make up the biggest centre of gravity for defence people at the sharp end in the whole of the country. They are also the most modern Army and Air Force bases in our country. It is these people who go on deployment to the Middle East Area of Operations, to Afghanistan and to Timor Leste. It was the people from Lavarack Barracks who first went into Timor Leste when the balloon went up back in 1999—our people from the 2nd Battalion, RAR.
I well remember the evening when the troops were about to deploy. I was at Lavarack Barracks with the Prime Minister and we shared a meal with the battalion. It was a very sombre evening, because nobody knew what would happen the next day when the 2nd Battalion went to Timor. To have that kind of experience as a member of parliament is something that you never forget. It is these people who go on operations now who become tomorrow’s veterans. It is these people, having given their service to our country, to whom our country owes an obligation to give service in return. That is what this Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010 is about—in some small ways improving that particular situation.
It is not widely understood that there are areas of operations other than Afghanistan, Timor, the Solomons and the Middle East. We have people right now in the UAE. We have people in Qatar, probably. We have people in Israel, in Syria and in Lebanon serving with the United Nations. There is the MFO, which is an organisation that keeps the peace between Israel and Egypt. They are all out there—they are Australians. It is really mighty to be able to report that these Australians, working alongside the members of defence organisations from other countries, are the most highly regarded in the world. The professionalism of our ADF people, who are the future veterans of our country, is much admired by other countries. In the UN operation in Israel, Lebanon and Syria, there are 27 defence forces represented. We are head and shoulders above any other defence force in the way we operate, how careful we are, our professionalism, how we get the job done and how the people of those countries admire so much how we are trying to keep the peace in the region. It is a great story and one that I will always continue to tell, because all Australians should be mightily proud of the men and women of the ADF.
I am reminded, if I might digress for a moment, that when I was in Syria our officer there was a female major. She had extraordinary peacekeeping capabilities and she was extraordinarily well liked, but she was also the best shopper in the old souk in Damascus I have ever seen. It is just great to see that our people immerse themselves in the culture of the countries they go to.
I too have participated in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program over many years now. I have done many deployments. I did one—the parachute arrangements—with the Army, which was with ADFA. I have done Navy and Air Force deployments on a number of occasions. It is a terrific experience for a member of parliament to be able to mix with Australia’s future veterans.
I congratulate Colonel JJ Frewen, who is in the United States. JJ was the commander of the 2nd Battalion when it went into Timor Leste. He is currently a full colonel. On 12 June he will be promoted to brigadier. He really deserves that; he is a fine commander. He will be going to work for General Morrison at Victoria Barracks in Sydney. General Morrison is also a former commander of the 3rd Brigade in Townsville. General Morrison’s dad was also a general. It is all incestuous in the ADF. He is a very hard taskmaster but he knows what needs to be done and he gets the job done. It is terrific. My colleague sitting next to me, you were in Western Australia in the Army weren’t you?
Yes and a lot of other places over 15 years.
Western Australians in the Defence Force are quite lesser people when you compare them to the 3rd Brigade. You will have your right of reply later on. In relation to this bill, however, we do have to provide the right support for Australia’s veterans. This bill makes five changes to the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986. The changes will better align veterans’ entitlements with the Social Security Act and that is important to provide the most equitable system that we can. Firstly, the bill removes references to benevolent homes. There have been no benevolent homes since 1994 and the term is no longer used so it is time for the legislation to be updated accordingly.
Secondly, it exempts payments for expenses made under the labour market program. Under the present system, any payment for an expense incurred during part-time work experience is included in the income test. These payments may be reimbursement for items such as work, uniform or equipment that is required to complete the program. Similar social security provisions do not include such payments in the income test and the same should apply to veterans’ entitlements. It is a no-brainer. This is reflected in the bill, which will ensure veterans who are undertaking this kind of work experience are not financially disadvantaged.
Thirdly, the bill changes the requirements for a veteran’s partner in claiming a foreign pension. Under the existing law, a partner is not required to claim a foreign pension even if they are entitled to it. Again, this is different to the rules of the Social Security Act so the bill introduces uniformity in this area as veterans’ partners will now be required to claim an equivalent foreign pension where eligible. In the long run this will mean that, as a couple, they will be receiving more income and support.
Another change to this area is the way in which the payment of arrears of a foreign pension is assessed. The bill makes sure these payments are treated in the same manner as other similar pension arrears payments under the Social Security Act.
The final amendment explains the treatment of superannuation under the assets test and the income rules. Some superannuation interest is able to be disregarded. However, in some circumstances, the value of superannuation cannot be disregarded under the asset deprivation rules and will be subject to the income rules.
The coalition supports the amendments this bill makes. They are straightforward. Veterans are entitled to fair and equitable treatment and it is therefore important to standardise the treatment of pensions and benefits in Australia. A part of this is achieved by bringing veterans’ entitlements into line with the Social Security Act. I support the bill.
I join with other members and colleagues in supporting the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. The government and the Australian community are justifiably proud of our ex-service men and women. The measures in this bill will go some way towards improving the wellbeing of Australian veterans and the wider ex-service community. Like most members in this place, I joined with local veterans, their families and the community to mark Anzac Day only a few weeks ago. Despite the rain and the very cold weather in Ingleburn, which was a bit unseasonable for April, I was very proud to be in attendance. In embracing the spirit of Anzac Day, it was great to see so many young people in particular taking the time to pause and reflect on the contributions that have been made by service men and women and what has been achieved on their behalf. It was great to see the number of young people attending. At Ingleburn, where we go to the dawn service, I would say that the number of young people who attend has grown considerably over the last five years. Obviously something is having an impact. It could be that the education system is educating young people more about what the contribution is or it could be that innate sense of wanting to grapple with part of our future. I think it is quite significant.
I would like to commend Don Keefe, President of the Ingleburn RSL sub-branch, and Richard Moore, its secretary, for organising the moving service which recognised and commemorated the contributions of all the veterans, particularly those who attended that day. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge that the Ingleburn RSL sub-branch received in February of this year a $4,000 contribution from the federal government to undertake an important project to honour and remember the contributions made by Australians in times of war and conflict, as part of the Saluting Their Service commemorations grants program. This $4,000 has gone to help the Ingleburn RSL sub-branch replace the gates of the Ingleburn RSL memorial park, to improve the safety and accessibility. I am advised that that government support has made it more accessible for people who want to attend the services. As we heard from previous speakers, the Saluting Their Service program is making a genuine contribution to servicemen and service organisations around the country. I am very proud to be part of the government which oversees that program.
I would also like to take this opportunity to indicate that recently, on 30 April, I attended a vigil at Hyde Park in Sydney organised by the Vietnamese community, the New South Wales chapter of the VCA. I paid my respects and marked the 35th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. This time each year holds a very special significance for Vietnamese Australians. The vigil this year marked the 35th year since the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese communists. It was a very sad moment for all Vietnamese people, especially for those who believe in liberty, freedom and democracy. The event was an opportunity for all those present to pause and honour the lives and memories of the many fine Australian and Vietnamese service men and women who had their lives tragically cut short in the Vietnam War.
Our involvement was at a cost of 521 Australian servicemen, with more than 3,000 significantly injured. Regrettably, as every member of this House would know, a number of their wounds, were they were physical or otherwise, sometimes have a chilling aspect in terms of their effects in later life. That is why a number of our veteran organisations advocate for and support those people in looking after their long-term welfare. The contribution in Vietnamese lives to that conflict was also chilling, with 1.3 million deaths. That is one of the significant reasons to recognise the contribution of Vietnamese servicemen in that conflict. I would like to pay my respects and acknowledge Thanh Nguyen, the President of the Vietnamese Community of Australia, New South Wales Chapter, and the countless volunteers for organising this highly successful vigil and for their ongoing commitment to advancing the interests of the Vietnamese community, particularly in south-western Sydney. I also acknowledge the efforts they made to acknowledge the support of the ADF for their cause when they were in need. I appreciate the significant lengths they went to in acknowledging those contributions, particularly of the 521 young Australians who gave their lives in support of that conflict.
Like other members, I participated this year—it was my fourth or fifth time—in the ADF Parliamentary Program. This year I had the opportunity to visit operations in the Middle East region. It was a 10-day deployment which had a number of MPs fly out from Sydney and land at Al Minhad airbase in the UAE. During the time there I had the opportunity to visit all areas of our joint force operations out of Al Minhad. That included being allocated to fly on a mission with the Australian Air Force in their P3 Orion. Our Air Force plays a very crucial role not simply in terms of the military operations there but also, in coordination with the Navy, being tasked to detect activities from people-smuggling off the coast of Somalia through to drug running. As you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, Afghanistan is one of the largest heroin suppliers to the world and our Air Force is playing a crucial role together with the Navy in doing something about that drug trade. When we were there we were not able to visit our Navy’s ship because they were doing a ship changeover. HMAS Parramatta is now on station and is undertaking a role in the gulf region as we speak.
I also got to see and work with the people loading the C130 Hercules aircraft. It was great to see these young men and women, and the professionalism out there was absolutely extraordinary. At Al Minhad the average temperature is about 40 degrees and you are surrounded by sand which is much finer than the sand on our beach in Bondi, so it was not the most pleasant place to be. Yet that was the staging ground for our troops as they prepared to go into other areas of operation, particularly Afghanistan. I am not sure how it is arranged, but every member of the ADF going into Afghanistan or on to other deployments must undertake a four-day military course at Al Minhad, which unfortunately means you have to kit up in full military gear, including bulletproof vests laden with all the components that go with it to make it even heavier, and spend four days out there doing various things and learning to look for things such as improvised explosive devices. These are things that, as a parliamentarian, I somewhat take for granted. I was absolutely astounded by the professionalism of all the personnel, whether in the company stores or in the Air Force organising the flying of missions or arranging the stacking of C17s with vehicles. We have people there with a great degree of professionalism and commitment and incredible determination.
As previous speakers have said, I could not have felt more deeply that the people we were working with and observing were the people who will be our veterans in the future. We owe it to them to ensure that we do everything we can to look after their long-term interests. I would very much encourage members of parliament to participate in the ADF Parliamentary Program when they get the opportunity to do so. It is an opportunity to see up close and personal what our young men and women do on our behalf. I think it is only fair that we acknowledge, whenever possible, their contributions. You cannot really say what they do is a job, but what they do is incredibly important to this country and we should at every opportunity let them know that they have and will always have our full support.
The bill before us today demonstrates the government’s commitment to the Australian veterans community and comes at a special time in Australia’s wartime history. This year marks some very significant anniversaries including the 95th anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign, the 65th anniversary of the victory in the Pacific, 50 years since the end of the Malayan Emergency and 60 years since the start of the Korean War. I understand there will be various special ceremonies throughout the year marking these occasions. I know a number of those will take place in my electorate and in many other electorates as well. I look forward to the opportunity to pay my respects at those ceremonies.
This bill introduces a number of minor technical amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This amendment bill further aligns veterans’ entitlements law with social security law and has a negligible financial impact. The changes will provide for greater certainty in the administration of veterans’ entitlements acts. It will remove redundant provisions and it will correct an anomaly whereby pensioners paid under social security law are, in some cases, receiving more favourable pension outcomes than service pensioners and income support recipients. Under the government’s provisions the veterans’ community can expect our persistent efforts to address a range of issues around veterans’ entitlements and services which go to addressing the wellbeing and certainly the recognition of our people. We are justifiably proud of our veterans and our ex-service men and women. This was demonstrated in last night’s budget.
The government is delivering on some key election promises for veterans in this budget by providing a $246.4 million package of new initiatives. Among those initiatives are commitments of providing greater access to compensation and income support; preventing unnecessary hospital admissions for members of the veterans’ community by expanding the community based health services; acting on the recommendations of the Clarke review; and one specific commitment, which has been raised on many occasions by both sides of this House, better access to health care and compensation for F111 workers. In relation to that I am referring to the cleaning of the fuel tanks of the F111 which impacted extremely seriously on the health of a number of those Air Force personnel. These budget measures clearly demonstrate that the government is serious about looking after veterans’ communities and their families.
Before I conclude I will also indicate the role that our veterans’ communities undertake in our respective areas. I would like to mention a couple of people before I conclude. Mr Ron Brown is the New South Wales branch president of the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia. Anyone in a Sydney based seat would see Ron around most weekends. I have to say that I am very fortunate that he is one of my constituents, so I get to see him more than most.
Keith Payne is another one.
Yes. For these people, who put in extraordinary hours, it is not a matter of pay, it is not a matter of kudos; they do it because they are so passionate in their belief in looking after their colleagues. Some of the cases they have to deal with on behalf of their constituents are very, very sad. To Ron, I say not only am I very grateful for his friendship but also I am extremely grateful on behalf of the defence community in my area.
Similarly, Ken Foster of the Macarthur Veterans Information Service, despite his own ill health and hospitalisation, has been an extraordinary contributor to veterans services throughout the whole Macarthur region. There is also my good friend Max Chinn and his wife, Olive. Max is the President of the Campbelltown Veterans Recreation Centre, Dredges Cottage, where all the veterans can meet. There are various veterans associations, and this is one of those things that we do as a community.
It is always a privilege for me to be associated with anything to do with our veterans community, as I grew up in an area where we understood what these people did on our behalf and what they were able to achieve. It is extraordinary to see these old men going about their tasks these days, mainly supported by their wives, and motivated only to do well by their peers. I think we have an obligation to do anything that we can ever do to assist these people in the way they go about their business of looking after veterans. Thank you.
While the member for Werriwa is still in the chamber, I would like to ask him to pass on my regards to Ron Brown. Ron and his wife come to a little place called Bingara in my electorate and have been there on a number of occasions. I have run into Ron at other national service events, in Inverell and other places. There are 300 or 400 national service people who get together at Bingara each year and have a weekend of events, and Ron is one of the people who have been very supportive of them. So please pass on my personal regards, but I would also like to recognise him and his work in this chamber.
I am particularly pleased that you, Deputy Speaker Scott, are in the chair for this debate, because I think that you were a very good Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. One of the sad things that happened with my entry into this building was that the numbers changed within the National Party, and I believe I was partly at fault for your loss of the ministry. I do apologise if I had any consequence in relation to that. I remember you as minister and I know you were very highly regarded in that role, and I think you still have a very positive influence to this day on the current minister and others who are involved in veterans affairs.
This Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010 is really about some housekeeping in terms of veterans affairs, and I guess everybody will support the legislation, as I will. But I do intend to make a second reading amendment, which the member for Kennedy will be seconding, and I do intend to have the bill returned to the main chamber, where I will call a division. I am fully aware of the consequences of the amendment—in a sense, the issue is with money bills—but I feel so strongly about the amendment that I think it needs a division in the House to gauge the feelings of the members towards what the amendment is actually addressing.
I have raised this issue over a number of years—and I think the first time was in 2002; I only came into this place in 2001—particularly in relation to Second World War veterans who did not achieve what is called qualifying service. Qualifying service essentially is serving in a theatre of war where an angry shot was fired. But they did serve their nation. Back in 2002 I used the example of my father. He has been dead a long time, but he served in the Middle East. If he had lived beyond the 1950s, he would have had qualifying service. Many other people—people in all of our electorates—joined up to defend the nation and were ordered to go either overseas or to Townsville, to Western Australia, to Singleton or to various other places within Australia not only to be trained but to be ready to be sent wherever they were ordered to go. In many cases, some of those people served for five years but did not leave Australia. As a consequence, they did not have what is called qualifying service. If they did have qualifying service, they are now entitled to the gold card. Most of those people are now well into their 80s and would not be enjoying the best of health. Obviously, they are being treated by the health system differently from those people who did have qualifying service and served overseas.
I will move this amendment. I will read it, if I may, because it encapsulates not only those people in the Second World War but people over 70. I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words “while supporting the Bill—
which obviously I will be—
the House is of the opinion that the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) should be extended and that the full repatriation benefit, including the health entitlement Gold Card, to Australian veterans who are aged 70 years or over, irrespective of whether those veterans have been in danger from hostile forces of the enemy as the current legislation and proposed amendment bill demands.”
It is essentially to recognise those people who were prepared to defend the nation, to carry out the orders of their superiors and to go wherever it was demanded they go. On the example I used a moment ago, of my father being in the Middle East: if the Japanese had defeated the Australian forces in New Guinea, for instance, my father and his comrades would have been absolutely useless in defending Australia. The very people that did not go overseas and receive qualifying service—and receive health benefits now—would have been the ones that would have defended the nation they represented. They would have been in Australia. Obviously, the powers that be at the time would have been making decisions based on how many troops they needed to leave in Australia just in case the Japanese did in fact break through and come to the Australian continent.
I think it is an absolute disgrace that we have particularly Second World War veterans—and they are dying at the rate of about 800 a month at the moment—that are being treated as second-class soldiers. They are people who gave up four and five years of their lives to train to serve this nation in any capacity where they were ordered, and they are being treated differently from those who went overseas. There are many people—and I am sure we all have within our electorates examples of men in their 80s who were in their 20s then and trained as paratroopers or tank operators or whatever and received injuries just in the training processes. Now they are in their 70s and 80s, it obviously would be coming against them in their health. They deserve the recognition and the respect of this nation and should get the entitlement to additional healthcare assistance through the gold card.
As I said earlier, I recognise that this amendment relates to money, so in a sense it can be treated as an invalid amendment. I am not demanding—particularly since it is the day after the budget—that the government suddenly find additional money tomorrow for this issue, but it is important that those veterans who are still alive actually feel that respect from parliamentarians. They deserve that respect.
If we are serious about encouraging young people into the armed services to defend those of us who do not serve—and I listened to the member for Werriwa talking about our young people in Afghanistan and Iraq et cetera—we have to make sure that, if something goes wrong with them, if their health does suffer because of their service or associated with their service, they have special regard.
There can be no-one more special than someone who was prepared to die for this country in the Second World War, and yet we are still treating some of those people as second-class citizens. As I said a moment ago, Second World War veterans are dying at the rate of 800 a month. It is not an exponential cost to the nation to treat these people the same as their comrades who did serve overseas or happened to be travelling through Darwin when Darwin was bombed or happened to be in Townsville when various incidents occurred in that area. They were going where they were ordered to go. So I ask the Main Committee and the House—when the bill does get back to the House—to look seriously at this, to look past the absolute money requirements and to look into their hearts about this. This is about recognition of people who were prepared to die for us. It is something that we should look seriously at.
In concluding, I want to reflect on a recent trip that I did to South Korea with a delegation. It was amazing the recognition that remains in that nation of the Australian forces in the Korean conflict. It was very, very touching that both elderly and young Korean people, when they found out we were Australians, said thank you for what our veterans of the Korean War—in a sense, a forgotten war—did for them. We were the first cab off the rank. It was a United Nations force at the time, but Australia was there first. We were one of those nations that said, ‘Yes, we’ll defend the rights of these people to have their freedoms rather than be taken over by the North Koreans and the Chinese.’ Australians were there first. That has not left the minds of those people.
It is an incredible nation now. In a lot of ways, this history is an advantage we have over other nations in the way in which we deal with them, either diplomatically or in a trade sense. So I just pass on to the House the good wishes of many people—from the Prime Minister to the foreign minister through to people in the street—who wanted it to be conveyed to the Australian people that they remember what our forebears did for them. Those men would be over 70 now too. Those who served in Korea obviously would be in receipt of a gold card, but there would be many others who were prepared to go or would have been on the next plane or boat. They received the same training and had the same capacities but do not receive the same benefits in terms of their health care.
I would urge all members to really think about this particular amendment. Normally I do not support second reading amendments because, in a sense, they are meaningless. But this is not meaningless in relation to the way in which we have regard for these people. I think that, at the rate at which they are dying, it is about time that we showed them that we do consider them to be all the same—not as one class of soldier and another class of soldier. It has obviously been done in the past—and I am not blaming any government for this—because of the sheer numbers and the multiplication of costs. But, as they are dying out at a very rapid rate, I think the least we can do is recognise their contribution and look after their comrades who are still here to this day. I am very pleased that the member for Kennedy is going to second this motion.
Is the motion seconded?
Yes. My father was not a bitter person but he most certainly felt the pain of being medically discharged during the Second World War. Speaking about one of the groups that he was with in the Army, he said the irony of it was that they went to Africa, they had a wonderful trip around the world and they never saw a shot fired in anger. He said he could never go in the Anzac Day marches because he had been medically discharged. He had volunteered before the war broke out. He said he could see war coming and he thought it was everyone’s duty to volunteer.
I must also declare a personal interest: I also fit into this category. I think it behoves us to declare an interest when we have one. I also joined up, but not before the war. The war with Indonesia—the ‘konfrontasi’—had already broken out. I was 18 years of age at the time. At 17 I had never envisaged that at 18 I would be carrying a rifle and be on 24-hour call-up to go and fight in Indonesia and later in Vietnam. I was in the 49th Battalion. The average age of the 49th Battalion when they went to New Guinea was 18½ years. My father and his battalion volunteered in exactly the same way as I did. They had not envisaged that Australia would be at war with Japan. The war with Japan suddenly came upon them and, some three, four or five months later, they were up on the Kokoda Trail. One thousand men from the 49th Battalion went up there. As I said, the luck of the coin could have gone the other way, but they ended up at Kokoda and Sandananda. When they were relieved at Sandananda, only 28 of the 1,000-strong battalion were able to walk out unassisted. The majority of the battalion died on the Kokoda Trail or at Sandananda or Buna. It was simply a matter of luck. Those men had volunteered and were prepared to go. They were the unlucky ones. My generation volunteered and we were prepared to go. We were on 24-hour call-up. But we were at the lucky ones; we did not end up going.
I think the amendment moved by the member for New England is an excellent one. It takes into account the reality of men who were prepared to go to war and sacrifice their life. Through the toss of a coin, they ended up one way and not the other. In the First World War my great grandad and his brother quite literally tossed a coin. As luck would have it, my great grandad lost, and his brother went to Gallipoli—he is still at Gallipoli and he will always be at Gallipoli. So today we are talking about the toss of a coin, and that should not decide whether your country honours you or does not. You volunteered in exactly the same way. Your life was at risk in exactly the same way. You just happened to be lucky that you did not get shot at.
I would like to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010 without wishing to comment extensively on the amendment as I am sure that will be dealt with in due course. Earlier, the member for Herbert spoke very highly, very fondly, of the efforts of members of the 3rd Brigade of the Australian Regular Army, and at that point he made some comments about Perth and soldiers serving in Western Australia. So I would like to take the opportunity to speak a little bit about what happens over in Western Australia and my high regard for the Army Reserve’s 13th Brigade, because I think that there are aspects of this bill which will certainly impact upon the members of the 13th Brigade.
The commander of the 13th Brigade is Brigadier Stephen Cain, and under his command there is A Squadron, 10th Light Horse, a unit which has a very great tradition in the service of this nation. My understanding is that A Squadron served throughout the First World War with the Australian forces and distinguished themselves on numerous occasions. Similarly, the 11th/28th Battalion traces its heritage back to the Second World War and the First World War, and 16th Battalion also goes back to the First World War. Other units within the 13th Brigade are the 7th Field Battery, 13th Field Squadron, 109th Signals Squadron and the logistics units for the 13th Brigade.
When we talk about veterans and about our soldiers putting themselves in harm’s way, in the current environment we often find that reserves are very much part of the Australian Defence Force and very much part of the Army. Look at what the 13th Brigade from Western Australia, based at Karrakatta, have done. In recent years they have been to the Solomon Islands, serving there; they have been to East Timor; to Malaysia, as Rifle Company Butterworth; and to Bougainville. And they have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, in very much the same way that the reserve units of the Australian Army trace their heritage back to the wars that this nation has fought, they continue to serve very much on the front line; on numerous occasions they have done so in recent years and they will continue to do so in the future. So, to Brigadier Cain, and the officers and other ranks of the 13th Brigade, I extend my thanks for and my appreciation of the work they do, the work they have done in the past and the work they will do in the future for our great nation.
Also, with regard to this bill, we have recently had Anzac Day, and on Anzac Day I attended two formal ceremonies as part of my commitment to the day. Firstly, I attended the dawn service at Ballajura RSL. This has run for several years now, ever since the Ballajura War Memorial and Peace Park was built by the local community. There were private donations, but also the previous federal government was quite involved—to the tune of $155,000 in a couple of sets of grants. Each Anzac Day a very good dawn service takes place. I would like to thank the president, Mike Gilmore, and the secretary, Scottie Alcorn, for the work that they have done to make sure that the interests of veterans and the community with regard to Anzac Day are served so well, particularly at the dawn service on that day.
Later on that day the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL held a very good parade and then a very appropriate service. Rob Frencham from the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL, the RSL of which I am a member, ran that. I was also most honoured to be able to lead the parade this year, marching alongside two World War II veterans. So I again extend my appreciation to the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL for the great work they do in commemorating Anzac Day each year.
I would also like to follow up on something the member for Werriwa said. I also would like to pay my respects to another chapter related to Australian history. That was the commemoration of black April, or 30 April 1975, the fall of Saigon and the fall of the Republic of South Vietnam. We recently commemorated that fateful and dark day for the Vietnamese community in Australia. That took place, as it usually does, at the Australian Vietnam War memorial in Kings Park in Perth. I would pass on my appreciation to all members of the community but in particular the incoming and fairly new president of the Vietnamese community, Mrs Dau Thi Tran, and President of the Republic of Vietnam Veterans Association of WA, Mr Nguyen Van Thanh. I would like to thank them for the opportunity to again—I think it is my third year now—attend that service.
I will always remind the Vietnamese people that we live for the day when their homeland will be free from the oppression and the failure that is socialism and the Communist Party of Vietnam so that religious freedom and true democracy and freedom of speech can once again help the people of that nation go forward. As we know, the Vietnamese people in Australia have thrived. Their work ethic is second to none, and they are successes in every part of this country. A great success story began when they came to this country. However, that is not the case for the 88 million Vietnamese that remain in their homeland. So I say again that we live for the day when their country will be free, when their opportunities will match those of Vietnamese people who live in this country.
To conclude, I would like to say that I stand in favour of the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010, and I look forward to it passing.
I have been pleased to present the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010, which addresses minor but necessary measures that will remove anomalies between veterans’ entitlements law and social security law. As a result of the changes in this bill, payments associated with part-time work experience under a labour market program will be exempt under the veterans’ entitlements income test. This corrects an omission in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.
The bill makes two changes in relation to comparable foreign pensions. Firstly, the partner of a service pension or income support supplement claim recipient will be required to claim a comparable foreign pension if the partner is entitled to such a pension. The partner will be required to claim the comparable foreign pension within a time frame that will be specified in a notice. In the case of persons who are currently receiving a service pension or income support supplement, their partners, where entitled to a comparable foreign pension, will be given six months to claim the pension. The second change to comparable foreign pensions affects the treatment of arrears payments of such pensions. Instead of treating the arrears payments as income in the 12-month period from the date of grant of the comparable foreign pension, these amendments will mean that the arrears payment is treated as periodical payments for the period of the arrears. This change is expected to provide a better result in the majority of cases and closes a potential loophole in the legislation by removing the opportunity for pensioners to change to a social security pension to avoid the income test in relation to the arrears payment.
Minor amendments in the bill will repeal all references to benevolent homes from the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, as these provisions are no longer applicable. Finally, amendments will clarify the intention of the veterans’ entitlements means test in relation to disregarding the value of certain superannuation investments specified in a determination by the minister. The changes will make it clear that these superannuation investments are not disregarded for the purposes of the deemed income rules and the asset deprivation rules.
These corrections to the legislation will protect the integrity of the means test and the pension system by ensuring that specified superannuation investments are treated as originally intended and are counted as assets when calculating deemed income and will be counted as assets if the asset has been disposed of for less than adequate or no consideration.
I make mention of the fact that these are largely minor amendments. We often find ourselves in this place correcting anomalies, updating legislation to ensure it better meets the needs of those we are responsible for. The amendments that are included as part of this bill form part of that process of updating matters into the future.
I will take the opportunity to address a couple of other points that were raised in the debate. In particular, my good friend the member for Paterson raised a number of issues around broader questions, if you like, that relate to the veterans’ entitlements system and some related issues. He made some points about a press release with respect to the budget. As I understand it, he raised issues from a press release produced by a series of organisations called the Alliance of Service and Ex-service Organisations. It covers the Defence Force Welfare Organisation, the Naval Association of Australia, the RAAF Association and the Royal Australian Regiment Association. I think, though, for the public record it may be a reasonable idea to go a little bit further than the member for Paterson. The first two-thirds of the press release go to the question of congratulating and welcoming what this government has done with respect to last night’s budget. I do not want to be accused of misquoting, so I am going to quote:
… welcome the budget decisions to provide new initiatives for Australian veterans over the next four years. The key features include: access to better health care and compensation for an additional 2,400 F 111 aircraft fuel tank maintenance workers …
I will paraphrase the next dot point: ‘Compensation and benefits for Defence Force personnel who participated in British nuclear testing in the fifties and sixties at Maralinga, Emu Field and on the Montebello Islands. And further:
… reclassification of the service of certain submarine special operations personnel between 1978 and 1992 to acknowledge their contribution, recognising it as qualifying service, opening up eligibility for benefits such as the Gold Card.
Up to 890 former submariners will benefit from this change …
Improved health care for veterans and war widows and reduce unnecessary hospital stays through preventable admissions and improve the community care program.
The needs of carers have been addressed as part of the government’s broader response to the Who cares report and the national disability strategy.
It is true to say—and the member for Paterson was quite clear about this—that additional issues were raised in that press release. That was the last third of the press release, which he spoke of. Three particular issues are raised there. There is a longstanding issue around the indexation of military superannuation and an issue around the reclassification of the service of certain counterterrorism special operations undertaken by SAS personnel. Again, there is no decision to remove the remaining level of erosion to the value of veterans’ disability pensions nor to adjust them in line with the increase in community living standards since 1997.
I want to go through some of those issues, given that they were raised by the member for Paterson. On the military superannuation issue there are a number of complexities. The suggestion appears to be that the government has not done what the government said it would do when it was in opposition. At that time—and I was part of that opposition and I had responsibilities in this area of military superannuation prior to the election—two commitments were made. One was a commitment to have a review of indexation methodologies. That was the Matthews report. There is no doubt that many in the ex-service community are very unhappy with the results of that report, but the commitment from the government was to conduct a review and the government accepted the review’s recommendations. I do not expect the exservice community to be happy with that—far from it, but the commitment that was made was honoured.
The second one related to the Podger review into military superannuation. The Podger review was commissioned by the previous government and received by the previous government in July 2007. In the lead-up to the election, post that time, the government of the day refused to release that report publicly. So the Australian community, the veteran community, who were very concerned about this issue, were unable to find out what the report said. In opposition we committed to publicly release that report in order for a debate to ensue about what recommendations were included in that report. We released that report publicly in December 2007 and we committed to a consultation process with the broader ex-service and military community about the recommendations included in that report. My colleague the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, conducted that review in the first few months of 2008.
The very clear response to that review—and it was reiterated to me again by a number of ex-service organisations just several weeks ago—was that they were deeply unhappy with the recommendations included in the Podger review and they wanted government to go very slowly around the question of this and they did not want it implemented. If what the member for Paterson wants me to do is to implement a report that the ex-service community did not want and does not want, I wish he would come out and say that very clearly. But I want him to understand and I want the ex-service community to understand that, in line with their issues and their views around the Podger review, the government is very carefully considering what should happen with respect to that review.
On the issue of reclassification of the service of the certain counterterrorism and special operations undertaken by the SAS personnel, the member for Paterson needs to check his facts and the background. This came out of the Clarke review, which was a review of veterans’ entitlements undertaken by the previous government some years ago, where there were a significant number of recommendations, many of which were actually ignored by the then Howard government. But you know what? There were some recommendations that were accepted. One of the recommendations that were accepted was one that said that you should not reclassify the service of the certain counterterrorism special operations group SAS personnel. So the member for Paterson has raised a criticism about an issue on which the previous government, of which he was a member—and he is certainly still a member of the same party, last time I looked—actually accepted the recommendation from Clarke, which was not to do what he raised in the chamber today. I find that passing strange.
The third issue relates to the question of veterans’ disability pensions and the erosion of the value of those pensions. This was subject to a great deal of debate and discussion within the ex-service community and in the parliament in the lead-up to the last election. In fact, following on from a decision taken by the then Labor opposition, around the time of the 2007 budget, to put forward a proposal to index disability pensions in the veterans’ entitlements system to the male total average weekly earnings, the Howard government accepted that proposal and extended that proposal in some areas and announced it at the time of the September National RSL Congress. Legislation then went through the parliament before the election with bipartisan support. That system has been in place since, I think, March 2008. Since then, those payments have maintained their value with reference to male total average weekly earnings. There is no question about that.
Since that time we have had the Harmer review, which was a review into income support payments and led, as the chamber knows, to significant increases, particularly to single rate income support payments—many of which are received by members of the veteran community. In fact, the Harmer review resulted in a budget commitment of some $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to income support payments received by members of the wider veteran and ex-service community. But, in the context of the issue of the continuing level of erosion, once again, the key date here is ‘since 1997’. I am afraid that, for most of the time since 1997, the member for Paterson and his party were in government. The erosion occurred under the Howard government—and no-one other than them. We led the charge to address that erosion issue—and that is a fact.
The other point I would make is about the action being taken in the budget and those initiatives on which I have been congratulated by these organisations. What needs to be clearly understood there is this: the changes in relation to F111 deseal-reseal workers, which will mean that some 2,400 are eligible for support if they have become sick with an illness which can be associated with their service—which we estimate will be something in the region of almost $40 million in additional compensation and more than $12 million in healthcare support for these people who have real issues as a result of their service—came as a result of a parliamentary committee report.
The report was produced on the basis of a commitment made by the government when we were in opposition, prior to the last election. I made that commitment. I made it at Amberley. I made it at a meeting of the F111 deseal-reseal support group. The next speaker was the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, and he refused to match that commitment. The point here is that the government’s initiative from last night, which I believe is supported by the opposition, was a commitment which resulted from an inquiry which the now opposition and then government refused to support.
The initiatives regarding participants in British nuclear testing and submarine special operations personnel were again recommendations which the previous government received as part of the review by Justice Clarke and recommendations that they refused to implement. I just want to be clear that people understand that some $36 million in initiatives relating to Clarke recommendations, which the previous government refused to accept, and some $55 million in total in terms of support for F111 deseal-reseal workers, are, as far as I know, being supported by the opposition, but when they actually had the opportunity to do something about it they did nothing. That point needs to be remembered.
I will come back to the superannuation issue on that basis. Indexation in relation to superannuation is not a new issue. It has been an issue of concern for quite some time. In fact, it was an issue of concern throughout the time of the previous government. The previous government, at a time of huge surpluses, at a time when they had the capacity, sat on their hands and refused to act. Now, a couple of years into opposition, they seem to have found their voice with respect to that issue. I think the ex-service community should be very careful regarding the wording of any commitments or any suggestions or any intimations that come through from the opposition about what action they may or may not take on this issue. The fact of the matter is that they had 10 years to do something about it, they had a financial situation which would have allowed them to take action and they did not take it. That ought to be remembered.
I will close by addressing the second reading amendment moved by the member for New England. The member for New England and I have on occasions discussed this issue of the particular applications of the current test of qualifying service, how it operates and what it means for people in certain circumstances. I think he knows that I find it a vexed area. However, he also knows that I cannot agree to his amendment for a number of reasons, which I am happy to outline.
It should never be suggested—and I know that he would not suggest it—that we do not value the service of those who joined our armed services at times throughout our nation’s history, particularly when the nation was in peril. It is absolutely true that the question of where someone went, where they were posted and what they therefore faced, was very much a matter of what was required from the particular service in terms of the needs of the country at that time. However, the underlying point around qualifying service goes to the question of facing and incurring danger from hostile forces. It is a cornerstone of qualifying service and it has been, as I understand it, back to at least 1936.
It goes back to the question of, regardless of the willingness to fight, the actual impacts that people face as a result of their service and a recognition within the ex-service community, ex-service organisations and the repatriation system that the actual facing of danger has impacts with respect to your life—and, frankly, those impacts are not good. That is why traditionally there has been a situation where qualifying service provides people with additional benefits and additional assistance under the repatriation system. That has developed over time, depending on the time, to a range of different aspects. The gold card is the one that is normally raised, particularly with the decision taken some years ago for over-70s with qualifying service to be able to access that card. That is a point that has been looked at in things like the Clarke review. Although Clarke recommended some changes to the incurred danger test, the bottom line is that he did support qualifying service as an ongoing concept to be maintained.
The situation for those who served in Australia is that it depends on where they served and when they served. There are inconsistencies, in my view, around aspects of this. If you served in Northern Australia in certain latitudes at certain times, particularly around the bombings of Darwin, the situation is that that was considered to be qualifying service. If you travelled in coastal waters at times when there was a fear of enemy action, of submarine attack et cetera, again there was allowance for qualifying service. Essentially, that underlying test is seen as being a very important part of the overall repatriation system. It is a test that this government maintains is correct. It is a test that the previous government held to. It is a test that all governments have held to over the years we have had this system in place.
That is not in any way to cast any aspersions about the courage, the bravery and the willingness to serve their country of those who are in a situation where they are denied that access. It goes to the question of the circumstances they faced in their service and the nature of that very important principle of qualifying service. It is also a test which is supported overwhelmingly in the ex-service community in terms of ex-service organisations like the RSL because of that recognition of the circumstances people face if they are facing an armed enemy. I would like to leave it on that point. Although the amendments in this bill are minor, they are part of a continuing adjustment of the system to ensure it maintains the support required for those we represent and who deserve so much. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for New England has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.
Question unresolved.
As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.
Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Mr Clare:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The objective of the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010 is to alter the provisions for granting exemptions to parents or principal carers who are asked to look for part-time work as part of their welfare requirements. This bill follows the Participation review taskforce report, published in August 2008, which outlines a series of participation requirement changes designed to increase flexibility. The report was subsequently actioned in the 2009-10 budget measure ‘More flexible participation requirements for parents’.
Essentially, the bill alters or creates exemptions available to principal carers on income support. The exemption for principal carers undertaking home schooling or distance education will be available until the youngest child leaves school up until the age of 19 years, which is up from the current 16 years. Secondly, the exemption for large families will be available where the family has four children of school age up to 19 years, again an increase from the current 16 years. Thirdly, the domestic violence exemption is currently only available where a party has left the violent relationship. The bill will see family breakdown no longer being a necessary precondition for receiving an exemption. A new exemption for kinship care is granted that allows for principal carers where there is a care plan prepared or accepted by a state or territory government. Job seekers who provide emergency or respite foster care will have an extended exemption to cater for the period of care and subsequent time to support their availability for future care. From 1 July 2010, a parent will be able to count their study, voluntary work or part-time work, or a combination of these, towards meeting part-time participation requirements.
Mutual obligations are of key importance in making welfare a disincentive for those seeking to avoid work and be supported by hardworking Australian taxpayers. Mutual obligations play an equally important role in breaking the cycle of idleness and habits of apathy. The obligations allow people to give back—in return for welfare assistance, they provide people with new experiences, including positive work experiences. Hardworking Australian taxpayers will be angered by the Rudd government’s watering down of mutual obligations. This is bad policy from a weak government. Under the previous coalition government those on income support not meeting participation requirements fell to below 10 per cent, according to industry participants. The coalition’s more rigorous and consistent approach to mutual obligation had a positive impact on returning the unemployed to the workforce.
According to DEEWR, in December 2003, 74 per cent of Newstart allowance recipients had an obligation to work. This has now dropped to some 58 per cent. In December 2003, 480,449 Newstart allowance recipients received a payment. In December 2009 the figure was 544,776. According to industry sources, the number of individuals on income support gaining exemptions from mutual obligation requirements has increased from a low of less than 10 per cent under the previous coalition government to in excess of 30 per cent in some areas. The total number of penalties imposed has fallen from 32,000 in 2007-08 to only 19,406 in 2008-09. Since July 2009 there have been only 12,283 penalties, and only 4,353 of them involved the most severe penalty of loss of benefit for eight weeks—‘three strikes and you are out’ is simply not being applied.
From 1 July some unemployed people will not even have to get out of bed to claim their welfare. The government’s approach means they will not have to hand in their forms in person at Centrelink offices. Instead, Newstart recipients will be able to report online or by telephone. Under the previous coalition government the ‘work for the dole’ time frame was six months of benefits. But now, under Labor, it has been extended from six months to 12 months. Indeed, the number of participants undertaking work for the dole has been cut in half by the Rudd government. As of 7 April there were 12,695 unemployed people in work for the dole schemes, down from 22,362 in April 2005.
Whilst the coalition does not oppose this bill, the government should do more to monitor and enforce participation requirements for those on income support. I foreshadow that the coalition may seek to introduce amendments to this bill in the Senate. The weakening of mutual obligation is bad policy from a weak government.
I rise to support the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010. I would like to start by saying that this bill, which amends the Social Security Act, will improve the participation arrangement for tens of thousands of families on income support—many of whom reside in the south-west of Sydney, my electorate included—with participation requirements that give them the opportunity to gain more skills and improve their work opportunities. I know that the previous speaker, the member for Menzies, just made a series of criticisms of this bill and said it watered down the former Howard government’s stand. Make no mistake: this bill still has at its core mutual obligations with respect to social security. Those are front and centre in this legislation. But we are making sure that those obligations are constructed in a framework of fairness.
As we go through this bill, I want to say that couching an argument based on how tough you can be on people who unfortunately have fallen through the cracks of life is not the way I think you would like to present yourself to an electorate. That particularly goes for an electorate of mine, which has a lot of people who unfortunately do need to be assisted from time to time. These are people we do want assistance to get back into a normal way of life and back into normal society. I get to see the success stories of what we achieve out in the south-west of Sydney as well. I know from speaking with many parents who are on income support that some of them find themselves having difficulty complying with the current job search requirements. They tell me often that the current job search requirements are too rigid, particularly when there are a number of children involved. We are trying to make sure, without removing mutual obligation, that these rules do not act as a block to these people gaining skills to enhance their ability to find work and participate through work in a normal life.
It is all very easy to come in here and trivialise the issue by saying, ‘Let’s ratchet it up and see how tough we can be.’ But the truth of the matter is that not everyone out there has been dealt the same hand in life. Sometimes it is necessary to show some compassion in how we go about helping these people back to where they can fully participate in society. As I said, I get to see the other end of it, where people do come back—having had that degree of assistance—and go on. People have with assistance attended the University of Western Sydney and gone on to be teachers. One young woman I had the opportunity to meet some years back—I actually met her at a homeless shelter—for a range of different reasons was homeless. She was estranged from her parents. With a group of people and with the assistance of the local Rotary club we supplied for her tutoring services. One thing she made very clear to me was this. She said, ‘I’ll bet you assisted your kids with their homework when they were young.’ I thought to myself and said, ‘Of course I did.’ She asked, ‘Who helps us?’
I spoke to the local Rotary at the time. Two people who were key in Ingleburn Rotary, Michael and Sandra Kidd, were both retired high school principals. They started turning up at this refuge and tutoring the kids. This young girl—and I will not name her—contacted me at the beginning of this year to say she had been accepted to do a bachelor of social work at the University of Western Sydney. To simply go out and show how tough on people we could be would decry the sort of success that we are achieving out there.
I understand that what is also in this bill generally reflects positively on the report prepared by the government’s Participation Review Taskforce. It is important to rehash that a little. My colleague Brendan O’Connor, as then Minister for Employment Participation, in May 2008 established the task force to examine how participation requirements for parents—particularly those who were mature age job seekers—receiving income support could be adjusted to better take into account their family and community responsibilities.
By way of background, what was delivered to the government in August 2008 contained some 20 recommendations, including one specifically in relation to mature age job seekers. Importantly, the government has responded to the recommendations made by the taskforce by changes within the bill to make income support more effective by helping parents balance parenting responsibilities with their participation requirements. We know that having a job is a key factor to inclusion. Whether it be socially or economically, it is key in terms of inclusion within our mainstream community. But given the skills and labour shortages we have experienced for a range of reasons, particularly over the term of the last government, which had a significant period of not investing in skills development, we need to assist job seekers, particularly those of mature age, to gain those further skills to re-engage with employment and do it in such a way that it is going to be meaningful.
To do this we will be investing $26.8 million over the next four years to improve the participation arrangements for parents and carers of children that will give them the opportunity to gain more skills and improve their opportunities in seeking employment. Under our initiatives parents will be assisted to better balance work and study and their family commitments. Contrary to what the opposition has been saying, indicated very ably before by the member for Menzies, it should be said that parents will continue to be required to meet their participation agreements in order to receive income support. That is not weakening it; that is actually adjusting it in such a way as to look at value-adding, if you like, our human resource, particularly upgrading skills and making their opportunities for work more realistic and more meaningful. The changes are not designed to make it harder, or for that matter easier, for people receiving income support. The aim is to make income support more effective by helping parents balance their parenting responsibilities with their participation requirements. Another key point I would like to make is that there will be no change in the amount of income support paid to parents as a result of these measures, so that is not a cost, as has been alluded to.
I would like to make a few brief comments about some of the specific features of this bill. It will extend the existing 12-month automatic exemption for families with four or more children, or where there is home or distance education involved, to be eligible until the youngest child turns 19 and completes their secondary education. The government recognises that parents play an absolutely incredible role and an important role in caring for and supporting their kids through education. It is probably not fair to say just we in government recognise it; I think anyone who is a parent or, as in my case, a grandparent would attest to that. By extending the exemption to current large families and home schooling and distance education, that will clearly permit the concentration of that care and support while a child is completing education up to 19 years of age. The government recognises that responsibility that parents with large families do have and that it does not cease when they turn 16. I have got to say it does not cease either when they turn 31, but that is another story. The changes recognise the role that parents have in supporting their children during the final years of their secondary education and the need for parents to balance their parental responsibilities with their participation in the workforce.
The bill will also liberalise the eligibility of the 16-week domestic violence exemption to include parents who remain in a violent relationship, as well as those who have left such a relationship over the previous six months. This is an area which is near and dear to my heart. Through my involvement with the police locally, I get to see that all our crime statistics in the south-west of Sydney are being effectively managed, and we are very proud of that fact. Whether there have been armed robberies or break-ins, the clear-up rates have been very good. The only thing which is remaining stubborn in our crime statistics is the incidence of domestic violence. I mentioned that to a young woman I found in a homeless refuge who was a victim of domestic violence. Regrettably, of all the kids I get to see out there, at least 85 per cent of the young people who find themselves homeless are victims of domestic violence. It is a scourge on modern society. I know that the debate on this bill is not the place to talk about domestic violence but I feel very passionately that we who are in positions of leadership in our community must, at every opportunity, speak up about domestic violence against women and children. It is incomprehensible in modern society that the incidence of domestic violence is at present levels.
The liberalisation of the existing 16-week exemption will provide better assistance for parents, regardless of whether they are in or have left a violent relationship. It acknowledges that parents are unlikely to participate effectively in paid work in such circumstances, while still caring and playing a parental role. That is probably a very hard ask. But there is a requirement that the length of the exemption will ensure that parents who experience domestic violence or family violence will have regular contact with Centrelink social workers and will be provided opportunities for referral to other support services. It is important to note that, should the initial 16 weeks not be a sufficient period, the exemption can be extended at the discretion of the Centrelink social worker. That is something I applaud, particularly in the south-west of Sydney—and I have no reason to look closely at any other electorate. If every member were prepared to scratch the surface in their own electorate, they would probably see that benefit applying similarly to a lot of people, and deservedly so.
The government also recognises an important role played in our society by foster carers, including those who do not have their own dependent children. This bill will introduce a new exemption which will remain in place for the period a child is in a person’s care in a fostering relationship. It also extends, importantly, to up to 12 weeks between foster care placements and, in doing so, it acknowledges that many emergency and respite foster parents find it difficult to participate in the workforce while caring for children, particularly those experiencing difficulties and disadvantage. These changes mean that they will be able to focus on their important role in our society—that is, providing primary care through a foster-caring arrangement. It also means that they will be available to provide emergency respite care after a child has left their care but before that child has been reassigned on a long-term basis. Additionally—and I get to see a fair bit of this in my electorate—the bill will recognise the role of kinship carers through a new exemption for those who care for a child under state and territory case plans.
One of the things that, regrettably, I get to see a heck of a lot of is children being put in the care of their grandparents. It is something that is occurring with great frequency. It is a testament to the love and commitment of their grandparents but, in the majority of cases I get to see, particularly through agencies such as Odyssey House and others, it generally involves drugs or other forms of addictive substances as to why a child cannot remain with the original parent. The support base, particularly offered by grandparents, often comes into the equation. Many of those instances are dealt with formally and that is done on the basis of kindred care arrangements.
Through the introduction of this new exemption, the government acknowledges the high needs of children in kinship care and the difficulties that these carers often face in balancing their participation in work and caring responsibilities and also maintaining overall connection with the family and family stability itself. These changes recognise that kinship care is commonly an alternative placement of children other than into a child protection system and the importance of this form of arrangement is very much in the child’s interest and in the family’s interest. This bill will at least recognise the responsibility of those principal carers under that arrangement.
The second component of the bill will also increase the flexibility for principal carer parents to undertake activities to satisfy part-time participation requirements. These components of the measure will be implemented through the legislative instrument and amendments to the guide to social security law. Some of the notable changes include changes to the rule of voluntary work and the introduction of more flexible arrangements over long school holidays allowing parents to meet their requirements through part-time study of at least 15 hours per week of contract or non-contract hours. It allows combinations of approved activities, part-time work, part-time study et cetera as long as the parent is undertaking 15 hours per week of activity and enables the principal carer parents the participation requirements to participate in the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme on a part-time basis.
Finally, the third component of the bill will provide more flexible methods for parents to report their earnings and participation efforts to Centrelink through expanded access to the existing facilities such as telephone based integrated voice recognition and web based channels. This will reduce the need for people to physically visit a Centrelink office for face-to-face reporting. This is a measure which I know that many busy parents will find very, very attractive. It will allow them to continue with their studies. It will allow them to continue with their efforts in terms of securing employment as well as what they need to do to commit to their caring of their family members. I think it is a very significant addition.
I am very pleased that the issue has been raised by parents in relation to the participation requirements and I acknowledge that, in the participation taskforce report and subsequently in the measures of this bill, it will go a long way to addressing those concerns—certainly the concerns that have been raised with me as the member for Werriwa but I am sure they have been raised with other members of this place—and making sure that people understand their mutual obligations but by doing so from a position of fairness and one which encourages the development of their skills to assist them to develop a more competitive position in terms of employment by giving them better opportunities. This is something which I think will go a long way towards satisfying those concerns which have existed for some time and have been a considerable frustration for people not being able to participate fully in our economic way of life.
I rise to speak to the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010. This bill aims to extend exemptions to parents who are asked to look for part-time work as part of their welfare requirements. The parents in particular would be in receipt of, for example, Newstart allowance, parenting payment, youth allowance or special benefit and they would have school-age children. At the moment they must report at least 15 hours a week of activities to Centrelink, and this new bill that is now before us aims to commence after this financial year.
There is no doubt that this bill is well intentioned in giving additional exemptions to parents who are asked to look for work and to work part time as part of them receiving welfare. It is no doubt well intentioned. The problem is that there is not always a direct relationship between parents being exempted from looking for work or finding work and the very best outcomes for their families. In too many families and in too many households children are raised without any employment at all, whether from one or both of their parents. They have no role models. They have no experience—sometimes for generations—of the whole business of someone having an engagement with the workplace. They have no understanding of what it means to take on an apprenticeship or training and move into a workplace, to be financially independent. They do not have the sorts of choices that all of us in this room take for granted.
We know as a fact that in households where there is welfare dependence for very long periods of time and where it is very unlikely that the children have ever observed a role model in work, those children are more likely to be unemployed themselves. They are more likely to be teenage parents. They are more to have mental health issues and they are much more likely to experience poverty in their own lives. They are more likely to be exploited by the unscrupulous elements in our communities. So it is not always generous or a great idea to simply say, ‘If you’re a parent, we don’t really think you have to try very hard to find part-time work.’
Sometimes, indeed, we have a situation, in the case of an exemption referred to here for those experiencing domestic violence, where the very issue locking those women into the domestic violence situation and the abuse of their children is the fact that they have no economic or financial independence. They have no idea how they will live apart from the relationship which is causing them abuse and harming their children. The best way to help a woman out of an exploitative, abusive relationship is to help her become financially independent, help her to rebuild her self-esteem and help her to re-establish her skills or teach her skills in the very first instance so she can stand alone in the workplace and support her children.
So I do not think it is a great shift forward to extend or create a new exemption in this bill to provide that parents who have experienced domestic violence will be given a different sort of treatment when it comes to expecting them to look for work and move back into the workforce. Of course, right now there are exemptions for women who are experiencing domestic violence. Self-evidently, some women are so crippled and abused by that violence they cannot look for work, but I think it is important that the situation is very carefully supported and monitored by a social worker, by an appropriate person who is skilled and professional, and that the woman in that relationship, the relationship she needs to leave, is helped to move out and to join in with a place of work in Australia.
I am very concerned that this particular set of exemptions talks about the parent not having to look for work up until their children turn 19. That is a very, very long time for a parent to be out of the workforce—from when their children are born until the age of 19. When I was Minister for Workforce Participation in the former government, we introduced the new legislation that enabled single parents to remain on parenting benefits until their children reached ‘school age’ rather than 16. At that time, single parents were given an enormous amount of support to re-skill, to be taught literacy or numeracy or to have their qualifications upgraded so that they could rejoin the workforce when their children reached school age. I cannot tell you how many single parents—both men and women, but mostly women—were grateful for the opportunity and the increased resources we put into supporting them to get back into the workforce. When you have been out of the workforce for 19 years, there are very few employers who look upon you with much enthusiasm, particularly if you are a middle-aged woman whose skills are downgraded to just ‘housework’ or ‘being a mother’. So I do not think it is a kindness to say that you cannot do up to 15 hours of part-time work a week until your children are up to 19 years of age. It is too long. I certainly think 16 years of age is more than appropriate, and that is what the current requirements are. Certainly a 19-year-old teenager should not need the 100 per cent attention of a parent at that stage in their life.
I am also very concerned about the new exemption to be introduced to support parents providing kinship care for a child who is a relative through a care plan prepared or accepted by a state or territory government. We already have exemptions under the legislation for people who have care of a relative and that care has been recognised through a court order. This is relevant for Indigenous women, particularly grandmothers, in the Australian community, who are increasingly responsible for raising their grandchildren. We already have quite solid and strong exemptions in the system. I am concerned that the Rudd government thinks that by tweaking this legislation they can then walk away from this issue. The issue is significant and serious, and simply naming this group in this piece of legislation does nothing to actually address the problem. The problem for Indigenous grandmothers in particular is that if they have their full care of their grandchildren recognised by Centrelink their daughters will lose their parenting payments. Daughters often threaten to take the children back into what is perhaps an abusive relationship or a dysfunctional situation. It might be a relationship with a new de facto partner where the grandmother is concerned for the safety of her granddaughters.
If we do not deal with the issue of giving the grandmother some financial support for caring for those children which does not require the voluntary stepping forward of the daughter to register the realities of that caring arrangement then we are going to continue to see the grandmothers leaving their paid employment and struggling in poverty to raise their grandchildren. They do not receive a cent in Centrelink parenting payments while their daughter, or sometimes their son, receives that benefit, which is often spent on sustaining a drug or alcohol habit or on other behaviours which in no way help to support the children. This is a very serious issue in our community and I am very concerned that the government thinks that by taking a swipe at this problem with this piece of legislation the job is done. No, it does not address the problem at all.
Let me now move on to foster carers. I am very concerned that we could still be imagining that further exemptions should be extended to foster carers to receive, for example, Newstart allowance while they provide emergency or respite foster care for children. As far as I am concerned, foster carers are the unsung heroes of all of our states and territories where we have so many at-risk children who cannot remain with their own families and need foster care. But when the authorities in those different states look for foster carers they find they are a rapidly diminishing number of individuals. In the state of Victoria, for example, the foster carer numbers have collapsed by over 50 per cent. Why are those foster carer numbers collapsing? It is because foster carers are not being adequately remunerated. The legislation related to foster caring is not adequate. When foster carers ask, for example, to remain as carers for a child for much longer than just a few weeks, knowing the interests of the child in their care are best served by a longer placement, they are not listened to. So foster carers see children churn through their care, knowing they will therefore suffer serious emotional disadvantage and distress and perhaps will be permanently affected by the failure of our system to give them long-term, permanent care and love.
This bill refers to extending exemptions for carers while they are providing care and for a period of time afterwards to support their availability for subsequent placement of children in their care. I am saying that this is not the way to handle the crisis in foster care in our country right now. Foster carers need a whole new set of understandings and changed regulations state by state. In fact, I would very strongly urge that we have a national response to the needs of significantly at-risk children and the care options for them. It concerns me that in this bill we simply have an extension of the system and the hope that the problem will perhaps then go away.
We are also told that ‘parents will be able to count their study, voluntary work, part-time work—or a combination of these activities—towards meeting their part-time participation requirements’ in order to continue to receive the various welfare payments. When I was the minister under the Howard government, we looked at voluntary work being allowed for the purpose this describes. We found that too often, if a mother, for example, said, ‘I have been working at the tuck shop,’ or ‘I’ve been helping out at the op shop,’ there was a real reluctance on the part of the not-for-profit organisation to monitor that volunteer’s time of volunteer work or level of commitment to that volunteering work.
I suggest to this government that they really do need to look closely at volunteer work in particular as a substitute for paid work or education or training, because it might sound like a kindness to an individual but it may mean that that individual really does miss out on the chance to rejoin the paid workforce or to be trained so that they can have a much better chance of getting a job in the future. Voluntary work is wonderful. All praise to the volunteers that keep small communities, in particular, in Australia going. But I think there are real dangers in having unsupervised voluntary work regarded as a substitute for part-time paid work or education or training.
I also have to say something in relation to those who are doing home schooling or distance education receiving an exemption from job seeking. Certainly it is difficult, for example, for women living in very remote parts of Australia who are distance educating their children to look for work. But I know for a fact that a very significant number of those individuals actually do work in helping to run properties—some of them very large properties. So I would not automatically suggest that because you are distance educating your children you should have an exemption from participation requirements until your youngest child turns 16. I think we should look at that more on a case-by-case basis. It should not be automatic, particularly when there are others employed in the home as tutors for those children or to undertake other housekeeping and parenting roles.
18:19:58
More and more parents are seeking to homeschool, particularly those who are of a particular faith and who do not want their children to be exposed to the educational philosophies found in our state education systems or in independent schools. I think it is important deal with this case by case. It is not a significant number of parents who offer home schooling but I do not think it should be simply be a blanket case that if you put your hand up and say, ‘I am going to homeschool my children, in the secondary years in particular, so please will you now pay me Newstart allowance or some other special benefit because I choose to homeschool my children for two, three or four hours a day.’ I think it should be a case-by-case matter and we should not lose control of the situation because it is not a kindness to families to have welfare dependency continue and become intergenerational, as is too often the case. If you have four or more children you currently, of course, have a large-family exemption as long as the four children are aged under 16. I think that aged under 16 is a more than appropriate age to cut off the special exemption. Extending that exemption till children are 19 is actually quite ridiculous.
This is a well-meaning set of extensions of exemptions but there are dangers among all of the best-made intentions. In Australian we have too much welfare dependency, which affects the lives not just of this generation but of children and grandchildren. Welfare dependency is not a good place to be if you are talking about your financial independence, your choices in life and your ability to maximise the opportunities that Australia presents. I am particularly concerned for families of non-English-speaking background who are perhaps newly arrived in Australia. Those families should not be assisted with further exemptions from requirements to look for part-time work but, rather, should be given special training and job-seeking support and should be given greater experience of Australian workplace culture, rather than simply being ticked off and allowed to stay away from Centrelink. The other day I was told a very serious statistic that 30 per cent of Newstart allowance recipients are now exempted from reporting to Centrelink with diaries or other evidence of their job seeking—30 per cent! I think that is an extraordinary indictment of the laziness of this government if that 30 per cent is the case. Those 30 per cent need help to find work, there is no doubt about that. Very often that assistance is quite complex and it takes a long time, but no individual should be allowed simply to abandon the business of looking for work because it is convenient to Centrelink staff, because that person is perhaps a difficult person to communicate with or manage. That 30 per cent being allowed to not participate in looking for work, education or training will become the parents of the next generation of welfare dependent, disadvantaged Australians. I do not think that is fair or right, so I cannot support all the principles in this bill. I understand that it was probably from the best of intentions but, unfortunately, from a government that is naive and not experienced in the realities of the working world.
I speak in support of the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010. I listened carefully to the member for Murray’s speech and I was not quite sure if she was going to vote in favour of this piece of legislation or against it. I understand she has some reservations, but I do not know if she is Arthur or Martha on this bill. It is all right to have reservations, but you have to make clear in your speech which side of the fence you are on. I am strongly in favour of this legislation.
I grew up in a working-class family in Ipswich. My dad was a cleaner at a meatworks and my mum was a shop assistant and there were significant periods of unemployment in my family’s life. I went to the Ipswich East State School for seven years and I saw in my local community, which was a really working-class community, real welfare dependency and intergenerational welfare dependency. I was the first person in my family to go to high school, let alone university, so I know the value of hard work and how important employment is. When my father was employed, we had food on the table and we could keep a roof over our heads. These things were personal issues for me, and they are personal issues for many Australians. This is not some sort of intellectual dissertation I am making; this is a speech about what I experienced in my personal life, and I would say there are many people on both sides of the chamber here who experienced similar periods of material deprivation in their lives. What we are doing here is going to make it easier for Australian families to be socially included and also to get back into the workforce. In this legislation there is a bit of compassion, humanity and flexibility, which are needed, and I commend it.
In my community, there is social disadvantage. The Ipswich community together with Logan have been designated as areas where the government is appointing or has appointed local employment coordinators. Samantha Wilson has done a terrific job in that regard. We have significant funding under the Jobs Fund for Worklinks, for new services in the Lockyer Valley. There are now Worklinks cafes in Ipswich, at Raceview and Brassall; and a cafe run by Busy Beat, which is a Gold Coast based jobs training organisation, is now located in Ipswich. There is an enormous amount of job training going on.
In my community, there is very high unemployment among young people. Traditionally, the Ipswich community has suffered tremendously as industries have declined. It has suffered from the decline of agriculture, which was so important and still makes up 11 per cent of the economy of Ipswich, and the decline of manufacturing, with the closure of the woollen mills and coalmines which used to employ thousands of workers, and the railway workshop which, in its heyday, employed about 3,000 workers. When these industries went, my local community suffered. So legislation like this is not some academic exercise; it really makes a difference to the lives of people in areas like Ipswich, West Moreton and the Lockyer Valley as well as in the Somerset region.
Giving a person a job is a way to redistribute wealth. I am not on some sort of ideological white horse that says that we have to socialise all industries. I believe in the market economy and I believe that giving someone a job creates wealth. I believe it creates stronger families and I believe it enhances family values. Family values are not the province of the political Left or the Right in this country; they are for all of us. Reducing welfare dependency improves the self-esteem of not only parents but also children. It gives children the chance and the opportunity to see that they can advance in their lives—materially, emotionally, psychologically and psychiatrically. Showing them that they can increase their earning capacity is very important. They can see the role model of their parents and then say, ‘I can live like that too.’ You too can become a physiotherapist, an engineer, a doctor or a lawyer. That is what this legislation is all about.
I also know from my experience as a family lawyer that many parents, women in particular, who have gone through situations of domestic violence and tremendous suffering at the hands of iniquitous partners—particularly male partners, the fathers of their children and step-parents—often end up with low earning capacities. They are in relationships where they are the victims of harassment and intimidation. This legislation shows them more flexibility and compassion as well.
18:29:47
I commend the member for Werriwa for his speech in which he outlined in detail important changes in this legislation. I will not go through the changes in detail as he did. The participation arrangements and requirements for about 17,000 families on income support will change. It is estimated that this will improve their capacity to skill and improve their job opportunities. It is estimated that about 100 additional parents will become eligible for extended home schooling, and there will be distance education participation exemptions for many who live in rural and regional areas.
I am a strong believer that parents have the right to choose where their children should be educated. We have some wonderful private schools in my electorate. St Edmund’s boys college in Ipswich is a fantastic school. WestMAC over there at Karrabin is a fantastic school. There are two grammar schools—Ipswich Grammar School and Ipswich Girls Grammar School. I personally have sent my children to Raesbury State Primary School and Bremer State High School because I am a product of that state school system and my wife is as well. Parents have a right to choose. But some parents, for religious or other reasons, choose to home school. As someone who is a Christian, I have no problems with that choice. I do have some concerns about some of the curriculum we see in that regard and some of the more fundamentalist approaches in that curriculum. But we live in a democracy and parents have that right to choose. We are making it easier for parents who choose to home school with the more flexible arrangements in this legislation. I think that is the right thing.
As of December 2009 there were approximately 506,000 principal carers on parenting payment, Newstart allowance and youth allowance. There were 182,272 parents with participation requirements. So this is not some small piece of legislation that will affect a few hundred Australians. This is important legislation which will impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians and indeed their children. I strongly support the idea of mutual obligation. I think it is right that we require people to look at employment, to seek to participate, because what happens with a person without a job is that they suffer in terms of not just welfare dependency but also social isolation and often ostracism. What is the first question you ask a person? What do they do for a living. And what do they answer? ‘I am just a housewife; I am just looking after my kids.’ That is just wrong. It is just wrong but that is what happens to Australians. If they come from Victoria you might ask which AFL team they support, or which rugby league team they support if they are from Queensland. But this is a serious matter for people. It is a serious matter of self-esteem.
I am pleased that we are going to invest nearly $27 million over four years to improve participation arrangements for parents and carers. I am very pleased that we have kept the income arrangements and income payments at the same level. I am pleased that we have parents on income support whose youngest child has reached school age, six or over, but they are still required to undertake 30 hours of suitable activity. I think that is right. I think the Australian public expects that to happen. At times it is a gentle nudge, sometimes a bit of a push and sometimes a bit of a drag into the workforce because there are some people who sadly would like to sit back and not participate in our society.
Greater participation in the economy means greater participation in society. People who have jobs tend to get involved in P&Cs, sporting clubs, church organisations, social clubs. They tend to participate in community and that is what is important in terms of social inclusion. There is a flow-on effect. It is not just good for the economy, for economic development and productivity; it is also good for society because it builds community. I think that is really important. In my area we have some great people who are involved in this and we are dealing here with more flexible arrangements for women particularly who are tragically the main recipients of domestic violence. While I am here I want to commend the Ipswich Women’s Centre against Domestic Violence and Gabrielle Borggaard, who is the director there, for the wonderful work they do with the women of Ipswich and not just Ipswich but the rural areas outside—the Lockyer Valley and the Scenic Rim and Somerset regions, because they reach out to those areas.
I was pleased last week to be there and to light a candle when we recognised the women who have been the victims of domestic violence in our communities. Tragically, a number of women have been killed by their partners in the last year. I will not name the women here in parliament; it is not the right thing to do. This is horrible and when I was in private practice I saw it. I dealt with thousands of domestic violence cases through prosecuting and defending in the courts in Queensland—the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the state Magistrates Court. I saw it on numerous occasions and I lived it for decade after decade in my professional life. The work that Gabrielle Borggaard and others do is to be commended and lauded. I am pleased to be a White Ribbon ambassador. I think it is the right thing and that more men should stand up. I was pleased to be at D’Arcy Doyle Place in Ipswich where we lit candles. I was very happy to see the Mayoress, Janet Pisasale, as well as Rachel Nolan, the state member for Ipswich and the Minister for Transport.
While we are talking about this issue I also want to commend, because it is in the area of domestic violence, the former director of the Ipswich Women’s Centre Against Domestic Violence, Amy Stockwell. A number of years ago Amy took up the position as the person coordinating community development in the Somerset Regional Council. I have been pleased to meet with Amy and a number of those providers, like Lifeline, Austcare and other organisations, who are doing wonderful work with people. The work that these people do is not just about caring for people with mental health issues or people who are victims of domestic violence. They provide encouragement to bring people back into the workforce.
The legislation we have here modifies participation exemptions to make them more responsive to a family’s individual circumstances. I think that is a sensible way to go. The provisions in relation to foster care are really important. Foster carers are our unsung heroes and they simply need to have flexible arrangements. Many times children are put into foster care and grandparents, cousins, uncles or aunties who have a kinship role take on the responsibility for children who are the subject of domestic violence orders and who are mentioned on those orders. The children are also what we used to call many years ago ‘wards of the state’. They are subject to case plans or orders made in relation to their care and protection or their care and control. Caring for our kinship carers through this legislation by providing more flexibility is simply the just, humane and decent thing to do.
The third component, as the member for Werriwa mentioned, improves the circumstances for families. It means the cost in time and money of travelling, often from rural and regional areas, into a Centrelink office will be gone, because many people can be linked by web based channels and other sorts of facilities. That will improve the lives of people in regional and rural communities in townships scattered all around South-East Queensland and west of Brisbane, which I have the honour to represent.
This legislation is about compassion, flexibility and humanity. I have to say that not always did the coalition show that when they were in power. Many times they made changes with the best of intentions, but they did not always show the degree of compassion that they needed to. Certainly accepting the recommendations of the task force chaired by Patricia Faulkner was the right thing to do. I am pleased that the government has listened. Not always do governments of either persuasion listen to the experts and listen to recommendations. We have taken those recommendations on board, adapted the legislation on individual family circumstances and modified the existing participation exemptions to be responsive to those circumstances. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is important legislation that will affect people in South-East Queensland in your seat and mine and I commend the legislation to the House.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on a subject that has been dear to my heart. The changes outlined in the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010 follow from the August 2008 Participation Review Taskforce report on the operation of the Welfare to Work reforms introduced to this parliament by the former coalition government in 2006, which sought to move people from pensions to Newstart allowance. Much of that legislation I supported, in particular the commitment of the former government to assist welfare recipients to move from a reliance on social welfare to gaining employment. There are some good reasons for that.
An article in the Australian titled ‘Reforms that work’, on Friday, 16 October last year, said:
Centre for Independent Studies research has found the number of families dependent on “parenting payments” has fallen by 120,000, or 20 per cent, since job-search requirements were imposed in 2006.
All of us in this place, for a lot of reasons, want to do all we can to reduce intergenerational welfare dependency. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 May this year, written by Adele Horin, said:
THOUSANDS of sole parents are worse off under rules that changed their child support entitlements and forced them to get a job or go on the dole, new research reveals.
A typical sole parent with one child aged between six and 12 could be as much as $6700 a year worse off as a result of reforms initiated by the Howard government and introduced from 2006 to 2008.
The study, by academics at Murdoch University in Perth, shows only when typical sole parents get a full-time job paying at least $45,000 can they be better off with the new arrangements. But this is unlikely for most as their youngest child is only seven or eight when they have to move off the Parenting Payment and into the workforce.
“It’s much more likely these women and children will experience poverty as a result of these changes,” Lisa Young, associate professor in law at Murdoch University and a co-author of the study, said.
So there are mixed blessings with this reform. As I said, most of us want to see the end of intergenerational dependency on welfare. There is no doubt that access to the paid workforce provides an independent income stream, greater social inclusion and a sense of self-reliance. The intention is noble in essence. However, entrenched barriers to the workforce remain for many. At the time of introducing the original bill, little was done to remove these barriers. Still, little has been done. Instead, there is a continued demonising of people reliant on social security payments—to attain some perceived political advantage, and now as a justification to balance the budget.
Any assistance to help individuals gain a place in the paid workforce is without question supportable. But if we truly want to see more people employed we must recognise the realities faced by those attempting to break the cycle of welfare dependency and exclusion. In my speech to the House during the introduction of the Welfare to Work bill in 2006, I was particularly concerned about sole parents and people with mental and physical disabilities. Given that single parent families continue to increase and that 87 per cent of sole parent families are headed by women, I continue to be concerned about the disproportionate impact such measures have on women in our communities.
As an example—one I made members acutely aware of during the drafting of the previous legislation—I drew attention to the negative impact of limiting the time allowed for a person on welfare to retrain or re-educate themselves. I brought into this house a woman who might have suffered the negative impact of these measures. This woman came to speak to members in this place. She had several children. Her husband had left her soon after the birth of her last child. If my memory serves me correctly, her last child was about five weeks old.
Her dramatic change in circumstances first forced her onto welfare but she did not want to burden the public purse for long, so she enrolled in university to get a degree in education. She wanted to become a teacher so that she would have more flexible working hours and be able to work to better suit her parenting responsibilities. Of course, she wanted to give her children opportunities as they grew up and to be able to adequately support them financially through that period. In addition to that, she wanted security in retirement. She wanted to be able to contribute to superannuation. Her commitment should be congratulated and supported. But under this legislation—and it has not changed, despite this review—she could only continue to receive welfare if she dropped out of university. I think there were some changes made that allowed people already in the system to continue, but if you were coming in new you were only allowed to take up retraining or education for 12 months; otherwise, you would lose your entitlement to income support.
I find this completely unacceptable. I see my good colleague the member for Shortland nodding her head. I think all the women in this place would find that unacceptable. So a person could not complete a degree in higher education. Giving people such a short time to undertake training and education before requiring them to move off welfare continues to consign those on welfare—women in particular—to the lowest paid jobs in our community and it entrenches poverty in old age. That is my deep concern about this. Let us genuinely help people move off welfare, but let us not restrict them from taking up jobs and opportunities that truly reflect their capacity. It is important for the development of this country that we allow all people to develop to the best of their ability. Putting these restrictions on people in the welfare system does not achieve that at all.
Let me outline some more of the barriers that still have not been dismantled. The electorate I represent encompasses outer suburbs, regional areas and rural communities. Across that spectrum I am acutely aware of the ramifications arising for low-income families and individuals from the triple whammy of the housing shortage, the high cost of rent in inner city areas and an impossible waiting list for public housing assistance—which can be over a decade. As a result, single parent families along with other welfare recipients are driven to outlying areas, which lack transport, childcare services and in some cases job opportunities.
But the barriers to becoming employed do not end there. There are those who have mental illness, who face all of these difficulties and, on top of those, poor mental health services. They are almost non-existent in some places. I refer to services that would diagnose and adequately treat mental illness. As well, they have to face the prejudice of employers. In my speech back in 2006, I raised this because there was a study conducted by Professor Vaughan Carr into mental illness and employment. He surveyed businesses and found that about 77 per cent of employers were reluctant to employ people with a mental disorder. We are also informed of similar disadvantages experienced by people who have epileptic seizures. The take-up rate of assistance to people with a disability by business has been extremely disappointing, and this is despite generous government funding and incentives in the past.
To add insult to injury, the Public Service figures for employing people with a disability are going seriously south. So government cannot even set an example to the rest of the business community that employing people with a disability—particularly mental illness—may actually provide some advantages in the workplace and certainly would go a long way to helping some of these people to get off welfare. I think it is a disgrace that when Public Service rates are so low we go out there and call on industry and business—private enterprise—to support people with a disability and to support people with mental illness. We even give awards and prizes in the Great Hall in this place. What hypocrisy. Governments are not doing their bit to set the example. We should be the ones setting the pace and setting the example for private enterprise to follow, and we do not do it.
Episodic mental illness presents particular challenges, as it may involve periods of inability to work, leading to a lack of continuity in the workforce. The additional cost of medication and treatment, if it can be sourced when needed, and the threat of the loss of a healthcare card—even when a person with a disability takes on a small amount of work and makes a small amount of money—makes this a particularly difficult hurdle to full-time or even part-time employment for those on welfare. All these things contribute to entrenching people in the welfare system. They do not help to remove those barriers.
The most disadvantaged in society, the disabled and single mothers in particular, continue to face those same disadvantages. How can people with a mental illness even hope for independence in the paid workforce when support is almost non-existent? How can a mother work when she cannot get access to child care? How can she develop her skills when she gets little financial support to do so? How can she get to work when the escalating cost of housing has driven her to the outskirts of town, and how can she pay her ever rising household bills and buy a car to get to work?
The facts are that while we speak to this bill providing some exemptions for people for whom work in the paid workforce would not be an option, we are witnessing a government budget which further entrenches hardship for the most disadvantaged. I can understand why the non-government organisations that service this community are so disappointed. Fresh from abandoning its policy to build 260 child-care centres, the government will cut child-care payments for out-of-pocket expenses by $278 a year. The annual child-care rebate will be capped at $7,500, a reduction on the annual cap of $7,778 a child. Families stand to lose $926 a child by the fourth year of this measure. The government has overlooked those factors preventing women from rejoining the workforce.
For those with mental illness, the government has removed social workers’ and occupational therapists’ ability to offer mental health services under Medicare. This is apart from the fact that if you need a psychiatrist just speak to any community service organisations that are dealing with homeless people or others with mental disability and it is almost impossible outside of hours to get attention for people having psychotic episodes. So now not only do we deny people; there is no money in this budget for mental health measures. Not only do we deny people mental health services through psychiatrists and through the hospitals but we have now knocked off the Medicare rebate. From July, Australians with mental illness who access these services will no longer be able to claim back the Medicare rebate currently available, which will frequently mean they are unable to afford the service. Some 1,500 doors to early intervention mental health services will be closed at the end of June this year for vulnerable Australians with mental health issues. Along with the already stretched psychiatric services, this is a particular blow to people suffering mental health conditions.
The government has removed social workers’ and occupational therapists’ ability to offer mental health services under Medicare, and this move will hurt thousands of Australians and further entrench the welfare cycle of poverty for those people who suffer mental illness. It is a tragedy; it truly is a tragedy. We see many thousands of people—I think somebody quoted 100,000 people—on the streets in this country at night. Some of those people are on welfare. Most of them are on the streets because they have got undiagnosed, untreated mental illnesses. Again, just speak to anyone working in the sector, working out on the streets at night, providing shelter, providing services to this demographic. We are not becoming a very inclusive country; we are becoming a country excluding a large section of our community.
It is very unfortunate that the bill before us does not do more to assist people in these categories. There are of course circumstances that would prevent parents of young children moving from social welfare payments to the paid workforce. I am pleased to see that some of the recommendations of the taskforce have acknowledged these special circumstances and that many have been adopted in this bill. I pay tribute to the work of the Participation Review Taskforce, chaired by Patricia Faulkner AO. It is a very good report within the scope of what they were asked to do, but it does not go to the heart of many of the barriers that stop people with a disability, single parents and others from actually getting off that welfare cycle and getting into the paid workforce. Some of the recommendations that have been picked up in the bill that we speak to today that I completely support are those under the terms of reference entitled ‘the flexibility of participation requirements’.
I had at least one person who was caught in this come to me. If a sole parent—in this case it was a woman—takes up work with a school, for example, in the tuckshop or as a cleaner, he or she then has to go back and meet their work participation test with the department to continue to be eligible for income support. I am pleased to see that one of the recommendations being picked up is:
The Taskforce recommends that parents should not be required to meet their part-time participation requirements during the fortnight that includes the Christmas and New Year public holidays.
The Taskforce recommends that parents with regular paid work during school-term time should not need to meet part-time participation requirements over the long school holidays if they reasonably expect to resume their usual hours of work at the beginning of the next school year.
This particular change is a victory for common sense, and I know that it will be welcomed by families in the electorate of Pearce who are affected by this.
Other measures in this bill include consideration for large families—that is, an exemption extended to people with large families to care for—those who are engaged in distance education or home schooling of their children and those involved in foster care and kinship care. As we heard the member for Blair say earlier, those who are subjected to domestic violence—which continues to be a deeply entrenched problem with Australian communities—will now get, instead of a 16-week case-by-case exemption, an automatic 12-month exemption from the work participation requirements. The tests have also been eased for those caring for a child with a disability or a medical condition. There are a number of measures which I do not have time to pursue in total. These are common-sense changes that have been made and they are very welcome.
This bill is a sensible furthering of the exemptions first set out under the Welfare to Work provisions of 2006—but, of course, we are still waiting, as I said, to see the true tackling of the issues. It is undeniable that the best way out of the welfare trap is indeed to access a job in the paid workforce. Not earning a wage can have a profound consequence that reaches across society. The 2008 OECD report Growing unequal? Income distribution and poverty in OECD countries commented:
Most of the relative poverty in Australia occurs in jobless households where no one is working; in fact, Australia has the lowest rate of ‘in-work’ relative poverty among families in the OECD.
That trend has remained quite constant in Australia. In 2001, the Smith Family’s report by Ann Harding of the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling found that only three per cent of households with a wage earner were in poverty, compared to 31 per cent of those relying on welfare.
Employment and lack of employment have a direct bearing on the material wellbeing of individuals and their families. In 2005, speaking on the Welfare to Work reforms, I quoted the figure showing 700,000 children growing up in households with no job. Two-thirds of those households were headed up by single parents. Professor Stanley outlined some of the problems of that in her book Children of the lucky country?
In conclusion, breaking the unemployment and poverty cycle is not just about reducing welfare payments to balance the national accounts; it is about removing the considerable barriers that welfare recipients encounter in trying to find jobs in the paid workforce. We could do and should do much more to support those on social welfare payments to help them break the cycle of poverty. (Time expired)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I doubly thank you for the indulgence of sitting in the chair a bit longer so I can get my speech in before I relieve you in the chair. I really appreciate it very much.
I want to speak to the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010 in particular because as a former teacher I am very, very passionate about the fact that one of the most important things that we can do for people in our community, and indeed expect of people in our community, is to engage in the opportunities for work and education. I do not exempt principal carers from that. I have met too many women in my years teaching in TAFE who have spent years and years out of the workforce, raising a family and doing a very productive activity in our community, but who then through particular circumstances—most often a marriage break-up—find themselves in a situation where they have got to provide leadership to their children in the family and provide income support, and they suddenly realise how isolated they have become from the workforce and, indeed, from the community. There were some good programs that ran at TAFE concerned with getting those women in particular back into skills and training and back into the workforce. So I am a great supporter of the concept of mutual responsibility through these particular income support payments both for the principal carers and for the children for whom they are a role model.
The important part of that principle and that commitment to seeing that people actually engage with education and training and work is for us to do it in a way that does not have, if you like, the counteracting impact to our intention. If our intention in these sorts of bills and in that mutual responsibility is to support and encourage parents to engage and participate in the workforce, whether through training initially or a job, short term or long term, then we should do that in a way that actually enables them to participate given their individual circumstances. Sometimes it is very important, I think, when we put this sort of principle in place through legislation—as has happened across both governments now and it is a principle that has been fairly accepted across the political spectrum—that we also have the capacity to look at the outcomes and ask whether they are achieving the intention. I think that, by and large, those requirements are achieving those intentions and I have worked long enough in the TAFE sector to have seen really good initiatives that enabled principal carers—dads and mums, but mainly mums—to take those opportunities.
However, we did see the previous minister, who had the original carriage of this bill, set up a task force to do exactly that—to review how the participation requirement was operating. That task force produced a report. It was under the chairmanship of Ms Patricia Faulkner AO from KPMG. It was provided to the government in August 2008 and became the basis for the recommendations that the minister took into the previous budget—and it is interesting that we are discussing it in this budget week. Those recommendations are now enacted in this bill to take effect from 1 July this year. They are sensible changes to the requirements so that people can undertake what we expect of them without being put in a situation where in fact they are worse off, rather than better off, which is our intention.
It creates four major changes, and I think it is important to acknowledge those. The first is that the current exemption will extend the existing 12-month automatic exemption to principal carers with existing large families. I think the task force got quite a bit of evidence about this, and many of us can well appreciate that, if you have four or more children, even when the youngest one goes to school the impacts and requirements of the caring role are far beyond a carer’s capacity to carry out those participation requirements in the same way as someone who may have one or two younger children. So there is an acknowledgement that people with four or more children have specific circumstances. There is also acknowledgement that if parents have their children undertaking home schooling or distance education they undertake a part of an educative role as well and so we need to take their situation into consideration.
Also, importantly, the bill addresses the issues raised by the task force around the domestic violence exemption. As it existed, it did not apply to people who had stayed in their current situation. While one may well at heart understand how that was created in the first place, the reality is that, through the various ways in which domestic violence is managed and women and men are supported if they are experiencing domestic violence, to not allow them the exemption for 16 weeks in the participation rule because they had not as yet removed themselves from that family home is often counterproductive to what you are trying to achieve. To me, that is a sensible change.
There is also a new exemption created for respite and emergency foster carers. People could well understand why that would be in there. That exemption applies for the period of time in which they have a child in their care and up to 12 weeks between placements, enabling them to continue to do that very important work in our communities.
Finally, there is also a recognition of kinship carers where they are under the authority of the state or territory case plan. They are sensible amendments to me that indicate that, whilst these principal carers are still required to undertake participation, they will be able to do it in more flexible ways. The exemption will be able to be applied in situations where we would logically think they should be applied but where the hands of departmental officials had been tied under the legislation as it existed.
There are important changes also being made through a legislative instrument and amendments to the guide to social security law. They are also about creating more flexibility within that participation. While people are still required to do the 15 hours participation, there are some important changes there to allow part-time study, for example, to be included, including contact and non-contact hours. As a former TAFE teacher, I know that if you are trying to give someone the skills to re-engage in the workforce you may get them into a course that is eight to 10 hours because you want to give them four to five hours of individual support. That might be literacy support; it might be tutorial support. There are a range of vocational subjects that you provide that are not part of formal study that are important to enable them to undertake study. If they are not there then you are setting them up to fail in their studies. So it is important to have that in there, as well as the ability to combine activities. They could be doing a bit of part-time study and a bit of part-time work. There is the ability for volunteer work, so long as you can identify that it has vocational aspects, to be included.
Then there is participation in NEIS—the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme. Lots of women who re-enter the workforce these days do so through home based businesses. I know a lady in my own area with a card-making business who is doing a roaring trade now. She is doing wedding invitations, 21st cards and stationery. She set her business up through participation in NEIS. She has children at school and is a single mum and she is doing tremendously well. In fact, she was nominated for an award at the Illawarra business awards the year before last. I think that is a good initiative and a good avenue for some of those primary carers looking to re-enter the workforce.
In summary, I think it is important to acknowledge that the intention of this bill is to say, ‘We think participation and engagement are important. We don’t want to see people make the mistake of staying outside the system for long periods of time and becoming disengaged and permanently locked out of the workforce. We want to make sure that we are achieving that intention by being flexible and sensible about the way in which these requirements are applied so that we encourage and support people and not actually discourage them and give them bad experiences and have them decide that the whole thing is just a punishment rather than an opportunity.’ I commend the bill to the House.
I concur wholeheartedly with the comments made by the previous speaker, now in the chair. I think that she really highlighted the issue very effectively. The issue in the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010 before us is about modifying the existing participation exemptions and recognising that there are certain circumstances where people need to have exemptions and where the government needs to be more flexible in the way it implements the mutual obligation test that is applied to people who are working. Under the previous government, this test was very harshly implemented and many people were disadvantaged. They were disadvantaged to the extent that the test worked in the opposite way to its intent—discouraging people rather than encouraging them to participate in the workforce. That is what this government is about: creating opportunities for all workers to participate and trying to establish an environment in which that is most likely to happen.
This legislation does recognise that there are certain people who need to be looked at in a different light. That includes large families, as has previously been mentioned. Home schooling and distance education are, I think, two very important areas where this exemption needs to be extended—those people need to be exempt from having to seek work or undertake training. The liberalisation of the eligibility for the existing domestic violence exemptions to include parents who remain in a relationship is another area, showing an understanding that special circumstances exist for those people.
Also important is the recognition, through a new exemption, of the role of kinship carers who provide care through a care plan. That was an issue that I wanted to touch on and one that I feel very passionate about because, in these times, there are more and more grandparents, aunts and uncles who have the responsibility of caring for their children’s children or their nieces and nephews and who are having to put their life on hold. This legislation includes a 12-month exemption for those people and I think that is a very important aspect of the legislation, because the children they are caring for are often children who have very special needs and children who have been through quite a deal of trauma. This bill shows the type of flexibility that you would expect in the legislation.
Within my electorate, there is a kinship carer support network. It is run through the Samaritans and I strongly endorse the work that is done through that network. I have visited and met with the carers and they have told me their stories and about the way their lives have been impacted by having to care for their children’s children. It has meant them leaving work and it has meant them changing their whole lifestyle. I met with Karen at the kinship support service that operates at Charlestown. It provides service support for grandparents and extended family between the upper Hunter and the Central Coast. It looks to ensure that those grandparents and other relatives who are caring for children actually have the support, knowledge, information, understanding and backup they need. So I have been able to see firsthand just how important this exemption will be for that particular group of people.
The other cohort of people that I particularly want to mention are those people providing emergency foster and respite care. Under the previous government’s mutual obligation regime, those people were punished. I had foster parents that provide ongoing care for young children, older children, children who have suffered the worst traumas, have disabilities or have enormous problems. Those carers were forced to continue to look for work when the work that they were doing was providing so much benefit to our society. I think they are very important exemptions that are outlined in this bill. They are exemptions to put a little bit of humanity back into the legislation whilst, at the same time, recognising that participation is important, that training is important and that for parents and carers to actually obtain the skills and the knowledge that they need to enter the workforce is of great importance.
As the member for Pearce was saying, it is only through education and training that people get the skills and knowledge that they need to be able to obtain the higher paid jobs in the community and develop a good standard of living. I know the member for Pearce herself was a single parent who worked very hard to establish herself and she understands the issues that confront carers. It is through education, it is through training and it is through actually participating in getting back into the workforce that you will find that people can get their life back on track. It is very important.
I commend the government for undertaking the Participation Taskforce Review. There were a number of outstanding contributions that were made to the task force. The recommendations that were made by the task force have largely been implemented in this legislation. It is important to note that this legislation is about fairness, it is about humanity and it is about providing exemptions for those people that need exemptions and for those people that are most vulnerable. It is about recognising that where you have any participation requirement or mutual obligation requirement you also have to have the other side, the compassion. You need to be able to understand that this legislation is designed around people. This legislation is designed to increase participation in the workforce and it can only do it if it is fair, humane legislation. I commend the legislation to the House.
I also rise to support the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010. This bill is a very important bill and it comes off the back of a Participation Taskforce Review that was commissioned by the previous Minister for Employment Participation and taken up by the now Minister for Employment Participation for the actual changes to legislation. What these changes really do, while recognising that there is an imperative for principal carers of young children to be able to maintain continuity in the workforce, is actually ask, are we doing this in the best way possible? Are we actually making sure that our principal carers are involved in work and are a part of work?
Really, I think that we can do better. Workforce participation rates were published in the Participation Taskforce Review and it found the participation rates for mothers of school-age children lower compared with other OECD countries. Australian labour force participant rates particularly for single mothers as well as those in the 55-64 year-old group are actually lower than other OECD countries.
That shows that there are things that can be done to help, encourage and improve involvement in this area. Part of what we are looking at in this bill is ways to increase flexibility and ensure that parents can transition to work on different paths. The flexibility to allow parents to transition by improving their skills and upskilling is really important, and I will talk about that little bit more. We have heard a lot about increasing the flexibility for sole parents to meet their participation requirements, but we cannot forget that this is about whole families. In fact, what is at the heart of the exemptions and other parts of the participation requirements is ensuring that parents can give the best possible care to their children, especially in situations where children need some specific care.
Looking at specific exemptions, we will extend the existing 12-month automatic exemption for families with four or more children or families that are providing distance education for children from 16 up to 19 years if they are currently completing secondary school. This recognises that parents do have a responsibility and are involved in helping children, especially in large families, to get through those schooling years. We have said many times in this place and I have certainly said that finishing a year 12 education is a passport for children for the rest of their lives. So I see this exemption as one where we are really focusing on parents with large families getting an exemption so that they can make sure their children get the best pathway for the future.
In addition we are recognising the difficult role of respite and emergency foster carers through a new exemption that remains in place for the period of time the child is in that person’s care. Again this recognises that these children need more assistance and that having a carer who is absent is perhaps not in the best interests of a child who has been through often traumatic and difficult circumstances. As the previous speaker said, the role of kinship carers is recognised through a new exemption for those who have the care of a child in a state or territory case plan. I know this will be particularly welcomed by the grandparents I have spoken to who often take on the role of caring for their grandchildren, although they do not take on a full formal foster care role. Certainly a lot of people would argue that if a grandparent is able to take on that role that is in the best interests of the child, but there are a lot of complex issues that come with that. Providing that exemption is really important for these families to get back on their feet. But we should not get completely focused on exemptions. While exemption is for the parent, this is indeed also in the best interests of children—and that is really important.
A second area of recommendation by the Participation Review Taskforce which is a component of these changes is allowing more flexibility to help people upskill. The government wants to ensure that people get the best opportunity for and the best access to training. As part of our education revolution we want people to upskill, and I will give an example from my own electorate. By way of background, the bill will allow carers to satisfy their requirements for 15 hours participation, both contact or non-contact hours, in combination with paid work. I want to let people know what this meant for someone in my electorate.
Catherine Jordan of Morphett Vale, a single mother of one, said to me that she was studying aged care at TAFE and working casually. She wanted to work in the aged sector for which she had a real passion—an area where we really need qualified people. Like many Australians, she wanted to improve her skill set and eventually return to full-time work. As part of the previous requirements for participation she had to quit this study and focus on getting casual work. In the end, it defeated the purpose of skilling up someone who wanted to contribute to this very important area—especially as we have an ageing population. The changes in this bill will mean that Catherine can return to study, knowing that between casual study and her work she will fulfil her participation requirements. This is really important.
As previous speakers have mentioned, primary carers should be encouraged to pursue the development of their own private businesses if they so desire. I hear many stories of mothers and fathers, single parents, coming up with some very inventive and exciting businesses which they start at home. Under the changes in this bill, carers will be afforded the same opportunity and support as the rest of the population, allowing them to enter into the scheme on a part-time basis, giving carers the skills to go into business for themselves. This is really important.
I want to touch on one other very sensible change, which has certainly affected a lot of people in my electorate, which ensures that carers have more flexibility over the Christmas and New Year holidays—a very stressful time for families. It should be a time of joy but it is a time when non-government organisations, church organisations and charity organisations find the demand on their services really goes up. So having more flexible guidelines over Christmas and New Year holidays is really important.
Another important change is the flexible provisions for employees who temporarily do not work over school holiday periods—people who work in an administrative role or maybe as a classroom support officer. They may have a very good arrangement with the school where they work during term time, with guaranteed ongoing hours, but they are not needed in school holidays, although they do not necessarily want to work then because they want to spend time with their children. They do not want to leave their children at home alone because they have to go out to work. When talking about school holidays for two weeks, it seems nonsensical to many of the people in my electorate to have to fulfil participation requirements knowing that in two weeks they will be back at their job, yet they have to go through the process which, in fairness, does not improve their long-term sustainable role in the workforce. This is a very important and sensible change which makes sure that people who have good arrangements with their employer and ongoing meaningful employment can continue, rather than chopping and changing jobs just because they go on school holidays. Obviously we have specified that the carer must have the expectation of ongoing employment, but for people assisting in schools it is evident that having a break for two weeks is just about schools closing for school holidays.
In conclusion, these are important, sensible changes. They do not detract from the fact that we still want to encourage people into the workforce. We want to ensure, if they are receiving welfare money from Centrelink, that there is an obligation, but do it in a way that keeps in mind the children they are looking after and some sensible arrangements so as to ensure that by upskilling and educating themselves they can go even further and have a long-term, meaningful connection to the workforce. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Ms Hall) adjourned.