The Agreement for a Better Parliament has focused attention on the matter of supplementary questions. The agreement provides for the Leader of the Opposition or his or her delegate to be able to ask one supplementary question during each question time. The standing order amendments that have been adopted do not cover this matter; it has been left to be handled as a matter of practice.
I want to take this opportunity to let the House know of my position on supplementary questions. I will apply the following criteria: they need not be asked by the member who has asked the original question and may be asked either by the Leader of the Opposition or a member who appears to have been delegated by the Leader of the Opposition to ask the question, and I note that a supplementary question may be asked by a member other than the member who has asked the original question in a number of other jurisdictions; they should not contain any preamble; and they must arise out of, and refer to, the answer that has been given to the original question.
I note that the implementation of the provisions of the agreement concerning the operation of the House is to be subject to review by the Procedure Committee. Naturally, I would welcome any comments the committee may make on this matter.
I have discussed the matter of chairing arrangements for divisions with the Deputy Speaker and the Second Deputy Speaker. I understand that members of the Speaker’s panel may not wish to be in the chair during divisions. Should a member of the Speaker’s panel wish to vacate the chair for a division he or she should send a message to this effect to me, to the Deputy Speaker or to the Second Deputy Speaker. If the bells have been started the deputy speaker on duty should inform the House that it is expected that the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or the Second Deputy Speaker, as the case may be, is expected to take the chair while the bells are ringing.
Similarly, on certain questions the Deputy Speaker or the Second Deputy Speaker may wish to be replaced in the chair. In this case it would be for the Deputy Speaker or the Second Deputy Speaker to send a message to ask me to take the chair. They should also inform the House accordingly. For the information of members I present a copy of the document Agreement for a better parliament: parliamentary reform.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian telecommunications is at a crossroads. The government has an ambitious program that will drive future growth, productivity and innovation across all sectors of the economy.
The National Broadband Network will fundamentally transform the competitive dynamics of the communications sector in this country. NBN Co. is a wholesale only telecommunications provider with open access arrangements. The new network represents a nationally significant and long overdue micro-economic reform.
The government is committed to addressing the mistakes of the past and establishing a telecommunications regulatory framework in the interests of all Australians.
The government is therefore reintroducing this bill which will reshape regulation in the telecommunications sector to deliver outcomes which are in the interests of consumers, business and the economy more broadly. The measures in the bill will position the industry to make a smooth transition to the National Broadband Network, increase competition and improve consumer safeguards.
Consistent with the reforms announced last year, the purpose of the bill remains to:
Since this bill was introduced last year it has been the subject of a Senate committee inquiry which involved detailed submissions from stakeholders.
Addressing Telstra’s vertical and horizontal integration.
Some of the issues addressed in the bill have been discussed for two decades and are finally being delivered in this bill.
In June 2010, Telstra entered into a financial heads of agreement with NBN Co. to participate in the rollout of the National Broadband Network.
The agreement is a key milestone to achieve Telstra’s structural separation through the progressive migration of customer services from Telstra’s copper and subscription television cable networks to the new wholesale-only network.
Structural reform is clearly in the national interest. The bill includes provisions to authorise—for the purposes of section 51 of the Competition and Consumer Act—conduct by Telstra and NBN Co. relating to Telstra’s structural separation undertaking.
However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will make the final decision on acceptance of Telstra’s undertaking to structurally separate.
The bill provides for Telstra’s structural separation undertaking to include a migration plan.
There will be significant consultation on the migration plan which will deal with the processes and timing of migrating Telstra’s customers from its copper network to the NBN.
The bill now provides more legislative certainty for Telstra in the transition to a retail company.
The bill sets out a clear process for Telstra to seek approval from its shareholders on a proposal to migrate its customer services to the NBN, with a high degree of certainty about the regulatory outcome.
Telstra will be allowed to acquire specified bands of spectrum, unless the minister determines in a legislative instrument otherwise.
The bill clarifies the relationship between Telstra’s separation undertaking and the telecommunications access regime.
Other changes to the original part 1 of the bill include:
Access and Anticompetitive Conduct
The provisions under part 2 of the bill, which relate to the telecommunications access regime, have also been reviewed in light of industry feedback.
The most notable change is that the transitional provisions will allow access seekers to have recourse to arbitral determinations which will prevail over access agreements until an access determination is made by the ACCC.
The bill clarifies that binding rules of conduct will only be used in circumstances where, for reasons of urgency, there is insufficient time to make or vary an access determination.
To give effect to the agreement reached between Telstra and NBN Co., part 2 of the bill now contains changes to the facilities access regime.
The measures will ensure that Telstra can meet the requirements set out in its structural separation undertaking, migration plan, and other related agreements.
Consumer Safeguards
There have been changes to strengthen the consumer safeguards in the original bill. These broaden the ACMA’s record-keeping powers to allow it to obtain regular reports about carriers’ and service providers’ compliance with their obligations.
Other changes will enable the minister to direct the ACMA to determine an industry standard to enable a more effective regulatory response where industry codes do not adequately deal with consumer issues.
The strengthening of the consumer safeguards contained in this bill will ensure that consumers are protected and service standards are maintained at a high level during the transition to the NBN.
Conclusion
In closing, the government has listened closely to the feedback it has received.
The government recognises the strong public interest in the proposed reforms and has been mindful to balance strong measures with appropriate safeguards and incentives.
The measures in this bill are ambitious, but the government is determined to implement this long overdue reform to drive growth and productivity, regional development, social equity and innovation.
This bill is an important step on the road to an improved telecommunications industry structure, with better competitive outcomes and stronger safeguards for consumers.
I commend the bill 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 Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010 will improve patient choice of pathology services, and encourage providers to compete on price and quality of service.
Currently the Health Insurance Act 1973 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 at which they work. This means that a patient is effectively required to take a completed request form to the approved pathology practitioner or authority named on the 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 authority. This legislative change will allow patients to take a pathology request to an approved pathology practitioner or authority of their choice and will encourage pathology providers to compete on price and convenience for patients.
The government supports a patient’s right to choose their pathology provider, just as they are entitled to choose their own GP or any other medical practitioner.
Medical practitioners who request pathology services will still be free to make recommendations to patients about which pathology provider they feel is best suited to their needs. Feedback from requesters has shown that there are often valid clinical reasons for recommending a particular pathology provider over another. The government recognises the importance of the doctor-patient relationship and will continue to encourage medical practitioners to discuss with patients options for all aspects of their treatment, including pathology services.
In the case of diagnostic imaging requests, patients already have the option of taking their request form to any provider, not just the one named on the request form. These changes to the Health Insurance Act merely bring the arrangements for pathology requests in line with those for other diagnostic services.
The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reviewed this bill with regard to any potential impact on medical practice and in May 2010 recommended to the Senate that it be passed in its current form.
The amendments will take effect from the day after royal assent.
The government will also make changes to relevant regulations prior to 12 months after the date of commencement to require that requests for pathology services include a clear and understandable statement, which is obviously positioned, making patients aware that their requests can be taken to any approved pathology practitioner or authority.
Pathology providers will be able to continue to produce ‘branded’ request forms—that include the company logo and address—and to provide these to requesting medical practitioners. These may include a list of the locations of that provider’s collection centres. They will, however, be required from 12 months after the date of commencement to include on their request forms a clear and understandable statement, which is obviously positioned, making patients aware that these forms can be taken to any approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority.
Options for the wording of this statement was one of a range of implementation issues discussed with requesters, providers and consumers of pathology services as part of the stakeholder consultation process conducted by my department.
Informed patient choice is a key element of quality health care. This amendment will ensure that patients have a right to choose their pathology provider and are made aware of that fact, leading to increased competition and better service among providers. 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 contains one 2010 budget measure and several other measures.
The budget measure in the bill will enhance the existing arrangements for special disability trusts as part of the government’s ongoing commitment to people with disability, their families and carers.
Special disability trusts were established in 2006 to help families and carers provide for the care and accommodation needs of a family member with a severe disability. Special disability trusts differ from other forms of trust in that they have generous concessions from social security means-testing arrangements for the beneficiary and eligible contributors. This means that a person with a disability who is a beneficiary of a special disability trust will not lose any of their disability support pension unless their assets exceed a generous assets test threshold.
In 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs found that take-up of these arrangements has been lower than expected. The arrangements developed under the former coalition government were not working for people with disability, their families and carers.
In response to the committee’s report, the government committed to a number of changes to special disability trusts in the 2010-11 budget to provide more flexibility for trust beneficiaries and to make special disability trusts more attractive for families.
Under the current rules, if a person with a disability works for as little as an hour for the ‘relevant minimum wage’ or above, they are not eligible to be a beneficiary of a special disability trust. This bill addresses this disincentive for people with disabilities to participate in work and the community. It will allow eligible people with a disability to work up to seven hours a week at or above the relevant minimum wage, or to work under the supported wage system, and still qualify as a beneficiary of a special disability trust.
Other amendments will significantly expand what trust funds can be used for, such as all medical expenses, including membership costs for private health funds, and maintenance expenses of special disability trust assets.
Amendments will also allow the trust to make up to $10,000 per year of discretionary spending for the beneficiary’s wellbeing, recreation and independence. This change addresses the previous restrictive rules that trust funds could only be used for specified care and accommodation expenses, and will increase the social participation of beneficiaries.
The changes contained in this bill will build on the taxation concessions the government announced in the 2009-10 budget in response to the Senate committee’s report.
The bill will also include amendments to close a loophole in qualification for disability support pension. This loophole has allowed continued payment of disability support pension to people who live permanently overseas but return to Australia every 13 weeks in order to retain their pension.
From 1 January 2011, only disability support pensioners permanently residing in Australia will continue to receive the pension, except under limited and specific circumstances. This change will bring disability support pension into line with other workforce age payments.
Closing this loophole will keep the disability support pension payment system fair and effective. Any pensioners who have a need to travel overseas for short periods will still have access to the 13-week temporary absence rule.
In a further measure, the bill will continue the government’s program under land rights legislation for the Northern Territory by adding further parcels of land to schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. This will allow the land in question (that is, certain land near Borroloola, and the Port Patterson Islands) to be granted to relevant Aboriginal Land Trusts, helping to resolve two long-running and complex land claims.
The bill also amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 in relation to the Indigenous Land Corporation established under that act. The Indigenous Land Corporation was established shortly after the Native Title Act 1993 came into effect. In recognition that native title may not be established by all Indigenous Australians, the Indigenous Land Corporation’s functions include helping Indigenous Australians to manage land, and to buy land, to provide long-term economic development and environmental, social and cultural benefits.
The amendments will allow the minister to issue guidelines that the Indigenous Land Corporation must take into account if it exercises its functions in supporting native title settlements. Given the complex context in which native title settlements are negotiated, the guidelines should help clarify the Indigenous Land Corporation’s role in supporting native title settlements by providing guidance in the exercise of its functions. The guidelines may also provide guidance to the Indigenous Land Corporation that will enhance its reporting requirements on specific matters covered in the guidelines.
In making these amendments, the government recognises that the Indigenous Land Corporation can assist with the resolution of native title settlements, particularly where connection to the land in question is at issue and native title may not be established.
Another measure in the bill will clarify the eligibility for family tax benefit part A of some families with FTB children who are studying overseas full time. If the courses these young people are undertaking do not link to an Australian qualification, it is not clear under the current legislation that they should attract family tax benefit part A.
This bill puts that policy intention beyond doubt and ensures that young people studying overseas full time are treated for family tax benefit purposes in the same way as full time students undertaking Australian study.
Lastly, the bill makes some minor amendments, including to address two minor anomalies arising from the pension reform legislation enacted in 2009. Both amendments are to make sure people get the benefit of the new provisions that they were intended to have.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to revise the maximum funding amounts to provide additional funding for the transition to the student centred places, adjustments for indexation and changes to reflect 2010-11 budget decisions.
The bill provides additional funding for the implementation of the student centred funding system for higher education. The government adopted the new system in response to the recommendations of the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education.
Under the student centred funding system the government will fund a Commonwealth supported place for every eligible undergraduate student accepted into an eligible course at a public university. There is a transitional period in 2010 and 2011 during which the cap on overenrolment for Commonwealth supported places will be lifted from five per cent to 10 per cent in funding terms.
In the 2009-10 budget the government provided an estimated additional $491 million over four years to fund 80,000 Commonwealth supported places.
Universities have responded quickly to the new arrangements and it is now estimated that there will be an additional 115,000 Commonwealth supported places over the period 2010 to 2013. In the 2010-11 budget, the government provided $986 million over four years for additional Commonwealth supported places and for overenrolments in 2009.
This growth puts Australia in a good position to meet the government’s higher education attainment ambition that, by 2025, 40 per cent of all 25- to 34-years-olds will hold a qualification at bachelor level or above.
This bill increases the maximum amounts for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme in section 30-5 of the Higher Education Support Act for the calendar years 2010 and 2011 to reflect the additional funding for overenrolments in these two years.
The Higher Education Support Act no longer has maximum amounts for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme from 2012 onwards as there will be no overall limit on the number of students that table A higher education providers will be able to enrol. This means the bill does not provide an update for the additional funding for Commonwealth supported places in the years 2012 and onwards.
The bill also increases the maximum amounts for section 30-5, section 41-45 and section 46-40 of the Higher Education Support Act for actual indexation. The indexation of higher education grants in this update is still based on the old index for higher education grants which uses the safety net adjustment for 75 per cent of the index.
This will soon change following the introduction of the new index for higher education grants from 2012. From 2012, the labour price index, discounted by 10 per cent, replaces the safety net adjustment component of the higher education grant index. In 2011, student contributions are indexed at the new rate and the government will provide facilitation funding of $94 million, which is the same value as increased indexation in 2011. These changes to higher education indexation will deliver an estimated $2.6 billion in extra revenue to higher education providers over the period 2011 to 2015 from governments and students.
The bill changes the maximum amounts in section 41-45 of the Higher Education Support Act for reductions in funding of $18.4 million from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council program and $2.4 million from the Graduate Skills Assessment program across the years of 2010-11 to 2013-14.
The reduction in funding for the Australian Teaching and Learning Council is due to the high level of funding being devoted to the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and the fact that some of this funding will be allocated to the Australian Teaching and Learning Council for its academic standards work.
The government has provided funding for the Graduate Skills Assessment for 10 years. Participation in the Graduate Skills Assessment is entirely voluntary and students were required to make a co-payment. There has been diminishing interest from the students over time and the bill reduces maximum funding under section 41-45 of the Higher Education Support Act to reflect this.
The bill also provides the maximum amounts for the 2014 calendar year for section 41-45 and section 46-40.
This bill reflects the government’s continued commitment to an unprecedented investment in our universities through the full funding of the student centred funding system. This commitment will deliver a growing and sustainable higher education system. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (FEE-HELP Loan Fee) Bill 2010 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (the act) to implement the government’s decision to increase the loan fee from 20 per cent to 25 per cent for undergraduate courses.
The amendment will give effect to the recommendation of the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education to increase the loan fee for FEE-HELP for fee paying undergraduate students to 25 per cent.
An increase in the loan fee will enable the government to recover more of the taxpayer subsidised cost of providing FEE-HELP loans.
Even with a five per cent increase in the loan fee, the conditions of the government’s FEE-HELP scheme continue to provide an extremely favourable income contingent loan for students.
Students do not have to start repaying their HELP loan until their income reaches the minimum repayment threshold of $44,912 (in 2010-11). If students do not repay their loan, the government meets the cost.
The majority of students will not be affected by this change which will impact only on undergraduate students who choose to use FEE-HELP for their tuition fees in a fee paying place.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
I move:
That business intervening before Notice No. 10 government business, Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That standing orders 207 and 209 be amended to read as follows: 207 Presenting a petition A petition may be presented in one of two ways:
Amendments to standing orders 207 and 209 as they appear on the Notice Paper seek to permanently adopt the orders that were introduced in the 42nd Parliament as sessional orders for the term of the previous parliament. For the information of members, on 12 February 2008 the government introduced amendments to the standing orders which saw the creation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions. The committee was established to receive and process petitions and to inquire into and report to the House on any matter relating to petitions and the petition system.
The government sought to increase ministerial accountability in responding to the issues and petitions of concerned citizens. On 24 June 2008 standing orders 207 and 209 were first adopted to allow for the effective operation and performance of the Petitions Committee. Standing order 207 dealt with the manner and options available to members to present a petition to the House. Standing order 209 allowed for a presented petition to be referred to a minister by the Petitions Committee for ministerial consideration and response.
After an original six-month trial period the standing orders were extended on 1 December 2008 for the remainder of the 42nd Parliament. The amendments today simply seek to permanently adopt the sessional orders and incorporate them into the standing orders.
The establishment of the committee shows that the government is committed to ensuring that the voices of concerned citizens are heard and, more importantly, that ministers are accountable in responding to such concerns. During the 41st Parliament 761 petitions were received on various subjects of concern and contained a total of 598,877 signatures. Of these, only two received a ministerial response from ministers of the previous coalition government. With the parliamentary reform introduced by the Labor government in 2008, during the 42nd Parliament 327 petitions were received, containing a total of 488,776 signatures. Of these, 203—or 62 per cent—received a ministerial response from ministers.
This is an amendment that has the support of the House. Members have appreciated the fact that they are able to inform those citizens in their electorates who sign petitions that they do go somewhere and do get a response. The Petitions Committee introduced in the last parliament has therefore been, I think, a successful reform which all members are keen to see continue. I pay tribute to the former Chief Government Whip and former member for Chifley, Roger Price, who was really responsible for driving this reform. I am sure he will be pleased to note that it is now being introduced as a permanent reform into the parliament. These amendments are necessary to allow the continued effective performance of the Petitions Committee, which we will of course form when we set up the committee processes in the current fortnight. That is why I am bringing this forward this morning. I commend the motion to the House and I thank the opposition for their support for this reform.
This motion on petitions to permanently adopt the orders introduced in the 42nd Parliament as sessional orders does have the support of the House. The changes that were made to the way petitions are presented, and responded to by ministers, have been beneficial. Each year tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Australians right throughout this land sign petitions to both this House and the other place. They do so in good faith, believing that some note will be taken of their petition by people responsible for making decisions in this place.
The change which allows members to speak to the petition they are presenting on behalf of their constituents or citizens of Australia places more force behind the presentation of the petition. As we all know, previously we had a situation where once a week, I think, the Clerk would read the petitions to the parliament and then they went into a black hole—somewhere into the archives of this building, I presume, or wherever else parliamentary records are archived. Now there is a process allowing members to speak to the petition on behalf of those citizens of Australia and then, equally importantly, there is a process to ensure a response is provided to those people who have taken the time to petition the parliament about a matter which they believe is important—a response from the government. So this has been a worthwhile and beneficial improvement to the system that operated in the past and, as I said, it is a matter which has the support of all members of the House. It certainly has the support of members of the coalition and we look forward to its continued operation in this parliament.
Question agreed to.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Gray.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010, implementing the government’s recent commitment to the Australian Greens and Independent members to seek immediate reform of donation, disclosure and funding laws for political parties and election campaigns. The bill aims to improve our system of political donations disclosure and election funding to help ensure that campaigning is fair and transparent.
The bill introduces six measures in three key areas: increasing the transparency of political donations disclosure; more frequent and timely reporting of political donations and expenditure; and reforming the public funding of elections.
The measures contained in the bill are not new. The government has pursued reform to election funding and political donations since its early days of office, with the first bill on these issues introduced in May 2008. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters delivered an advisory report on that bill in October 2008. In December 2008, the government tabled amendments to the bill in response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report. That bill was rejected by the Senate. In March 2009, the government introduced another bill, encompassing the government’s amendments. That second bill lapsed with the end of the 42nd Parliament. The bill that I am presenting today is in substantially the same form as that introduced in March 2009.
The measures contained in this bill increase transparency and add to administrative processes for political parties and candidates. It is not the intention of the government to burden parties and candidates, but to increase the transparency and integrity of the electoral system.
The six measures in this bill can be summarised as follows.
The first measure would set the donation disclosure threshold level to a flat rate of $1,000, lowering it from the current threshold of $11,500. This rate applies equally to all participants in the electoral process, including donors, registered political parties and candidates.
The second measure relates to anonymous donations. Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, registered political parties, branches of parties, candidates, Senate groups and people acting on behalf of these categories can receive anonymous donations below an indexed threshold—currently $11,500. Anonymous donations above this amount are prohibited.
The bill extends this ban on anonymous donations to all anonymous donations except where the donation is $50 or less and has been received at a ‘general public activity’ (such as a fete where people may place money in a bucket) or at a ‘private event’ (such as a dinner, dance, or quiz night where people might donate small sums of money). These activities and events are defined in the bill and specified records must be kept in order for the anonymous donations to be retained.
The use of anonymous donations by third parties for political expenditure currently is not restricted under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The bill will change this to prohibit the use of certain anonymous donations by third parties for political expenditure. The new prohibition applies to third parties which are required to lodge annual returns of their political expenditure above the current threshold of $11,500. The bill also changes this threshold to $1,000.
Political expenditure, which is defined under section 314AEB of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, includes expenditure on the public expression of views on a political party, a candidate or a member of the House of Representatives or a senator; the public expression of views on an issue in an election; the publication of material that requires authorisation under the Electoral Act; the broadcast of political matter; and opinion polls or other research on people’s voting intentions.
Only anonymous donations of $50 or less which have been received by third parties at a general public activity or at a private event will be able to be used for political expenditure by entities required to lodge returns under section 314AEB of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
The bill also provides for the Commonwealth to recover unlawful anonymous donations and an amount equal to the amount of unlawful political expenditure as a debt due to the Commonwealth.
Together, these two measures which reduce the disclosure threshold and limit anonymous donations enhance the transparency of political donations and the confidence that the public can have in the integrity of our political process. The government believes that the community has a right to know who is giving what to whom. We wish to end the secrecy around donations.
The third measure would ban foreign donations. This helps remove a perception that foreign donors could exert influence over the Australian political process.
The fourth measure would prevent donation splitting. Large donations may currently be hidden across state or territory branches of the same party, potentially circumventing the disclosure threshold. The bill would see separate divisions of a political party no longer treated as separate entities, for the purposes of disclosing donations.
The fifth measure would aim to increase public scrutiny of political donations and expenditure by making information available to the Australian public, more quickly, and more frequently. The bill reduces current timeframes for lodging returns from the existing 15-, 16- and 20-week periods, down to eight weeks. More frequent disclosure of political donations and expenditure will also occur. Where returns were previously required every 12 months, they will now need to be lodged once every six months.
The sixth measure would reform public funding of elections by ensuring that election funding is tied to genuine election expenditure. This measure will prevent candidates, or any political party, from making financial gain from the electoral public funding system. Public funding will continue to be paid to registered political parties, unendorsed candidates and unendorsed Senate groups who receive at least four per cent of the formal first preference votes at an election. Under the bill, they will receive the lesser amount of either the electoral expenditure that was actually incurred in an election period between the issuing of the writs and the end of polling day, or the amount awarded per vote. In a technical update from the 2009 bill, the amount awarded per vote has been indexed for inflation.
As these six reforms are a priority for the government, the commencement date for the bill would allow them to operate from 1 July 2011.
The government is committed to building a dialogue with the coalition, the Australian Greens and Independent members, to ensure that real progress can be made in reforming campaign financing.
More than ever, we should move Australia’s electoral laws and processes towards the world’s best practice, so that we can continue to be proud of the inclusive and transparent nature of our political process.
The measures in this bill provide an important, immediate step that can be taken to maintain the integrity of our electoral system. I look forward to constructive negotiations with the crossbenches and with the opposition in delivering future reforms to the system. I urge all members of parliament to show their support for these reforms and enhance the transparency of political funding and donations in Australia.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
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.
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.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
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 19 October, on motion by Ms Gillard:
That the House take note of the document:
I seek leave to speak on the motion without closing the debate.
Leave granted.
I thank the House. There can be no more serious endeavour for any country or government than to send its military forces into conflict. Australia has done so in Afghanistan because of the clear threat to our national security from terrorists who have trained for and planned terrorist attacks from within Afghanistan’s border. It is appropriate that Australia’s commitment in Afghanistan is the subject of close parliamentary and public scrutiny. As a consequence, the government fully supports the holding of this parliamentary debate and future reports by the government to the parliament.
The government’s strong view is that it is in our national interest to be in Afghanistan. On 11 September 2001, al-Qaeda killed over 3,000 people from more than 90 countries, including our own, in its terrible attacks in the United States. The Taliban, which harboured al-Qaeda within Afghanistan, refused to condemn al-Qaeda or cooperate with the international community to bring it to account. The international community, including Australia, could not stand by and allow such a threat to persist. So we and others, under a United Nations mandate still in existence, and renewed unanimously by the Security Council this month, removed the Taliban from power.
The 11 September attacks were also an attack upon our longstanding alliance partner the United States. The ANZUS treaty was invoked after the September attacks. That decision was supported by both sides of this chamber. Australia’s contribution in Afghanistan is also an expression of the common interest we share not just with the United States but with the other 45 countries of NATO and the International Security Assistance Force in countering international terrorism. Since 11 September, over 100 Australians have been murdered, along with many more from other nations, in terrorist attacks around the world, including in the United Kingdom, Indonesia and India.
Terrorism in Afghanistan and in its neighbourhood remains a real threat. Afghanistan needs the help of the international community, including Australia, to build its capacity so that terrorists are unable to re-establish the type of presence that enabled such terrorist attacks. Australia and the international community now have clearly defined goals in Afghanistan. Our fundamental goal is to prevent Afghanistan from again being used by terrorists to plan and train for terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. To achieve this we must prepare the Afghan government to take lead responsibility for providing security for the Afghan people. We must stabilise the security situation sufficiently and then train the security forces to ensure that the Afghans themselves are able to take on both the leadership and the responsibility for managing security in Afghanistan.
In the recent past Australia has actively participated in a series of key international meetings to get the strategy and our support for Afghanistan on the right track. The Hague conference in March 2009, followed by the London conference in January this year and the Kabul conference in July this year, laid out for the international community three important principles: the importance of regional support, including from India, Iran, Pakistan and the Central Asian states, for a solution in Afghanistan; support for an enduring political solution, including reconciliation, reintegration and rapprochement within Afghanistan; and transition to Afghan responsibility.
The international community is making progress. Recently General Petraeus, commander of ISAF, and Ambassador Mark Sedwill, NATO’s senior civilian representative, briefed me in Afghanistan on the military and civilian progress being made on the ground. This briefing aligns with the advice the Chief of the Defence Force has provided to the government. As well, Afghan ministers tell me they are determined to achieve the goals set out in the Kabul conference on transition by the end of 2014 and they are confident that Afghanistan is on track in terms of growing the numbers and capability of the Afghan national security forces, both army and police.
The international community has cause for cautious optimism, but we face a resilient insurgency and the situation in Afghanistan remains difficult, serious and dangerous with the potential to revert. International support for the ISAF campaign is ongoing and troop contributions have recently increased. President Obama’s decision announced in December last year to increase US troop numbers by an additional 30,000 has been followed by a commitment of an additional 7,000 by other ISAF contributing nations. Australia has also in the past 18 months increased its force level by 40 per cent to an average of 1,550. The military analysis is that increased operations are reversing the momentum of the insurgency and extending the reach and capacity of the Afghan government into areas long held by the Taliban and their allies. Such ISAF disruption and dismantling of the insurgency creates the time, space and opportunity for the Afghan security forces to develop.
The international community is now clearly focused on transitioning security responsibility for Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. At the Kabul conference in July this year Australia and the international community supported Afghanistan’s objective that the Afghan national security forces would lead and conduct security operations in all provinces by the end of 2014. This objective will also be the key focus of the NATO-ISAF summit to be held in Lisbon in November, where ISAF countries will agree the process for transition coupled with consideration of the long-term international commitment to support Afghanistan. The aim of the security handover by the end of 2014 is anchored by the capacity of the Afghan national security forces to provide security in the main population centres, the necessary precondition for both the exercise of Afghan sovereignty and the core aim to prevent Afghanistan from again being used by terrorist organisations to plan and train for attacks. Transition to Afghan responsibility will be a graduated and uneven process. It will be done on a province by province and district by district basis when conditions are right. A job done effectively by the Afghans on their own is the objective and the desired outcome.
Importantly, transition is not the signal to withdraw. International partners, including Australia, will continue to provide support to Afghanistan. As has previously been made clear, security transition has not and cannot be seen as the automatic end of either Australia’s or the international community’s commitment to Afghanistan. Time and outcomes will determine the length and nature of that commitment, whether it is, for example, overwatch, embedded arrangements or other support. What is clear, though, is that international community support for development assistance and civilian capacity building will be required for years to come.
The strategy in Afghanistan cannot just be a military strategy; it also requires a political strategy. The solution in Afghanistan cannot just be a military one; it also requires an enduring political solution with reconciliation between the people of Afghanistan. The international community, including Afghanistan’s neighbours, has a key role to play in supporting such efforts. Australia continues to support Afghan led reconciliation with those individuals who are prepared to lay down their weapons, renounce violence and support the Afghan constitution. At the London conference in January this year Australia publicly committed $25 million to the peace and reintegration trust fund to assist the Afghan government’s work towards reintegration and reconciliation.
Training and mentoring the 4th Brigade of the Afghan national army to take responsibility for security in the main population centres in Oruzgan is the cornerstone of the transition objective in Oruzgan province. The Chief of the Defence Force advises this will take a further two to four years. In the meantime we are seeing improvement in the ability of the soldiers who make up the 4th Brigade. The 4th Brigade recently planned and delivered effective security for the parliamentary elections in Oruzgan and did not require additional support from Australia or other ISAF forces. This is a key sign of progress and a measure of growing confidence within the 4th Brigade.
Following the Dutch withdrawal in August this year, Australia joined with the United States to form the new multinational Combined Team Oruzgan responsible for military and civil operations in Oruzgan province. The transition from Dutch command has been smooth and successful. In Oruzgan Australia is working closely with partners from the United States, New Zealand, Singapore and Slovakia. While the US Striker Battalion and Australia’s mentoring task force, in close cooperation with Afghan security partners, provide the pillars of security, a key element of Combined Team Oruzgan is the civilian led provincial reconstruction team, the PRT, the main conduit for Australia’s civilian mission and Afghanistan. An Australian Defence Force protection element is dedicated to protecting these civilians so that they can conduct their work safely.
The mentoring task force as part of combined team Oruzgan now provides operational mentoring and liaison teams to train all five kandaks, or battalions, and the headquarters of the 4th Brigade. This increased training commitment is seeing mentoring task force elements move into new areas such as Deh Rawood in the west of the province and is fundamental to our mission. The 4th Brigade, under the ADF’s mentoring and guidance, is proving to be an increasingly capable force. The Australian Defence Force has a strong tradition of mentoring other defence forces, from East Timor to Iraq, and does it very well. The 4th Brigade, however, will require substantial support for the next few years. We are building up the capacity of these forces so they can operate alone. As each of the kandaks is at different stage in the mentoring process, progress will be uneven.
As well, our Special Operations Task Group continues to attack insurgent networks in Oruzgan, improving security and force protection for Combined Team Oruzgan. The special operations task force is also contributing to ISAF’s effort in the province of Kandahar. Other elements of Australia’s contribution, such as the combat engineers, the Rotary Wing Group and the embedded personnel throughout ISAF continue their highly visible and highly valued efforts in Afghanistan.
Our troops and Australian personnel in Afghanistan are performing extremely well in dangerous circumstances on a daily basis. As my friend David Miliband said of others, in a different context, they are both brave and impressive. Australians are proud of the fact that our troops have a well-deserved reputation for their effectiveness and their conduct. Afghan government ministers and General Patraeus praise the work and reputation of Australian deployed personnel, including in their engagement with local Afghan communities.
The support and protection of Australian personnel in Afghanistan is rightly our highest priority. Some recent criticism of the level of protection for our troops has been both inaccurate and ill-informed. I am pleased that there now appears to be a much greater understanding of these issues. ADF forces in Oruzgan are structured to include a range of critical capabilities. Not all capabilities, however, are provided by the ADF; many capabilities are provided through ISAF. Capabilities such as artillery, mortars and attack helicopters are available through our partners, when necessary. Tanks, for example, are not required for our current mission in Oruzgan Province. Australian troops now have access to more artillery and mortar support than they did a year ago and they have access to ISAF attack helicopters and close air support from fighter aircraft when necessary. The force protection review, commissioned by the government in July 2009, has led to a further package of measures and seen over $1 billion in new measures to further protect our troops. These protection measures are kept under constant review and I have made clear that the government continues to in particular examine further anti improvised explosive device measures.
While this parliamentary debate is a good thing, it will be a sad reminder to families of their tragic personal losses. Australia has lost 21 soldiers in Afghanistan, whom we will always honour. We face the prospect of further fatalities. Oruzgan Province remains a dangerous place and will be for some time. The recent Australian deaths and casualties bring this into stark relief. Between July 2009 and June this year there were no Australians killed in Afghanistan. In the last few months 10 Australian soldiers have died. Our thoughts are with all the families and friends of the 21 as they come to terms with their tragic loss. As well, since the beginning of the year more than 50 personnel have been wounded. Supporting their recovery and rehabilitation is an essential and high priority for government.
Suggestions for what Australia should do in Afghanistan now range from doing much more to boost our commitment to pulling out immediately. An argument deployed by those who oppose Australia’s commitment is that Afghanistan is not unique as a breeding ground for terrorism. They rightly point out that the terrorism landscape is both not limited to Afghanistan and is evolving. While real and tangible progress has been made in closing down terrorist training centres in Afghanistan, that country remains vulnerable. Terrorists operate from a range of places across the globe. They are able to recruit, train and plan out of poorly and ungoverned spaces in Africa and the Middle East. They are not confined to these places and indeed, as a counterterrorism white paper made clear last year, Australia needs to be alert to the threat of home-grown terrorism. The international community’s efforts in Afghanistan are of course not the only activities in the global challenge of countering violent extremism and terrorism. The international community recognises that this is a major long-term problem on a global scale and needs to be addressed in that context. It is a problem that is being tackled differently in different locations as circumstances dictate.
Another argument is that international efforts in Afghanistan have pushed al-Qaeda and their affiliates across the border into Pakistan and elsewhere. As a result it is said that the core job in Afghanistan is done; the terrorists are operating from elsewhere and so our activity should be focused elsewhere. It is, however, essential that Australia and the international community both maintain efforts in Afghanistan and engage with Pakistan. The Afghanistan-Pakistan border is highly permeable to terrorist movement and remains a threat to sustainable progress in stabilising Afghanistan. The Pakistan government does not deny this and nor the threat posed by violent extremism within its border. Pakistan faces an existential threat from violent extremism within its own borders. Australia is working closely with Pakistan to improve its capability to address the threat posed by violent extremists. Australia values our strategic dialogue with Pakistan and our engagement with our international partners through the Friends of Democratic Pakistan group, of which Australia is a founding member.
In the future when we look back on this period it will be even clearer that the international community has made mistakes. The initial effort in Afghanistan, including our own, was in 2001 and 2002 in the aftermath of September 11. There was then the Iraq distraction. There were insufficient international community resources in Afghanistan over that period to carry out the international stabilisation mission, and a withdrawal of Australian forces. After 2006, when the international community came back, it took too long to get to the well-defined strategy that we have developed over the past few years. This strategy is as a result of the Riddell review, the McChrystal review and, ultimately, President Obama’s response to General McChrystal’s review of both the military and the political strategies. The end result is a strategy that says that we cannot be there forever, and we do not want to be there forever. But we need to be able to put the Afghan security forces in a position where they can manage their own affairs and, despite the difficulties, a strategy that clearly points to the risks to Australia and the international community of leaving before the transition is effected. It is also a strategy that acknowledges that Australia and the international community expect to see substantial improvement in Afghanistan by its government on corruption, on governance, on electoral reform, on counter-narcotics and on human rights, in particular the treatment of women and girls, especially when it comes to education.
Progress is being made. It is incremental and hard won, but it is apparent and will become increasingly so. As General Petraeus, commander of ISAF, and Major-General Cantwell, commander of Australian forces in the Middle East, have both recently stated, the required strategy and resources are now in place, and a sound foundation has been laid to mark the way for further progress.
The mission we have set for Australian forces and Australian personnel more broadly in Afghanistan is the right one. The consistent advice to me is that Australian forces have the resources and capabilities they need to undertake their core mission. As circumstances change—and in conflict circumstances continually change—we will continue to examine, re-examine and adjust our efforts as required. We have a responsibility to Afghanistan and to our allies and partners to remain committed. We have a responsibility to the fallen to continue the task. Most importantly, we have a responsibility to the Australian people to ensure that we protect Australia’s national interests, and that is what we are doing in Afghanistan. Australia and Australians should expect no less of us.
I seek leave of the House to table, for the benefit of the House, a fact sheet which I publicly released on the weekend for public consumption.
Leave granted.
After nine years at war in Afghanistan, it is appropriate for the parliament to reflect on our current commitment—its past, its progress and its future. If the military theorist Karl von Clausewitz is correct that ‘war is an extension of politics, but by other means’, it is certainly incumbent on the government and indeed the parliament to present a clear national security rationale for war. The public should demand a detailed, strategic justification for ongoing conflict. A case always has to be built to continue to put men and women in harm’s way. It is the very least we owe those who wear our uniform.
This war has extracted much of our nation’s blood. Twenty-one Australian soldiers have been killed in action and 152 wounded in action since 2001. There have been 10 killed and 52 wounded this year alone. The war has taken husbands from wives, fathers from children, sons from fathers, brothers from siblings and grandsons from grandparents. The cost has been high, borne by a few. Only the most significant of national objectives could be worth such a price.
This morning I will present the case for Australia’s ongoing engagement in Afghanistan based around five points: the original premise in 2001 for war, the changing nature of the conflict, the ongoing strategic justification for staying the course, past achievements and future challenges, and what Australian success in Afghanistan would look like.
A 21-year-old celebrating their coming of age today was 12-years-old and in primary school when the first US and UK missiles struck Afghanistan on 7 October 2001. This young adult probably cannot remember where they were when the World Trade Center towers came tumbling down on September 11, killing almost 3,000 people, including 10 Australians.
For all people of our nation to look forward, we must first look back to see how this fight began, because the world changed on September 11. Australia invoked the ANZUS alliance to stand shoulder to shoulder with our friend and ally the US. President Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom—the US’s global fight against terrorism—and commenced combat operations to destroy terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, capture al-Qaeda leaders and cease terrorist activities in that country.
On 20 December 2001 the UN approved resolution 1386 that created the International Security Assistance Force as a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, al-Qaeda and factional warlords. Indeed, the US assembled an International Coalition against Terrorism that by 2002 involved 136 countries, including 55 countries providing military forces, 89 countries granting overflight status for US aircraft, 76 countries granting landing rights and 23 countries agreeing to host US and coalition forces involved in military operations in Afghanistan. The world had changed, and Australia was involved and continues to be involved in a UN mandated conflict that has been re-endorsed every year. Up to 1,300 defence personnel were deployed by Australia in 2001. It was a just and justifiable war in response to an unmitigated act of barbarity.
Australia withdrew its combat force by the end of 2002, after the destruction of much of the terrorist force. For the next 2½ years, up to 2005, there were literally only two defence personnel in Afghanistan. But by July 2005 the original premise that defeating al-Qaeda, the Taliban and insurgent warlords would ensure peace from terrorism was shattered when the London bombings showed the new face of Islamic extremism: home-grown terrorists with wives and children at home. Terrorist cells also strongly emerged in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. No longer was the war in Afghanistan the silver bullet to ensuring a world free from terrorism. Islamic extremism had spread its tentacles further afield using violence to achieve its end: a world subservient to extreme Islamic sentiment.
By the end of 2005, insurgent forces in Afghanistan continued to operate, causing Australia to once again deploy special forces. In 2006 the Howard government deployed a Reconstruction Task Force to start rebuilding in Oruzgan province, with numbers of troops building to 1,000 by the time of the 2007 election. The emphasis was on building and on fighting the insurgency in the populated areas with the special forces group.
Post election, the mission on the ground changed when the new Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, announced that the government would maintain its current commitment in Afghanistan but would place a new emphasis on training the Afghan National Army. The strategy would change once again post President Obama’s victory, when in 2009 an open-ended US commitment of transforming Afghanistan was changed to a mission of training Afghan forces and handing security over to them when they were ready.
The book of Ecclesiastes says that there is a time for everything and a season for every activity under heaven. It says that there is a time for war and a time for peace. There is a strategic justification, a time for war, in Afghanistan, and it stems from the first principle of any government, which is national security. In December 2008 the Prime Minister expressed this in the government’s National Security Statement that established the goals for the security of our nation, its people and interests. The goals were expressed as:
Freedom from attack or the threat of attack; the maintenance of our territorial integrity; the maintenance of our political sovereignty; the preservation of our hard won freedoms; and the maintenance of our fundamental capacity to advance economic prosperity for all Australians.
These goals were supported by seven principles, which included, amongst others, the Australian-US alliance remaining fundamental to our national security interests, regional engagement, and support for the UN to promote a rules based international order.
The first objective of Australia’s national security is freedom from attack or the threat of attack. That includes the capacity to protect our citizens and interests at home and abroad. Australia has lost over 100 of its people to terrorist attacks abroad, with all of these attacks linked in some way to the freedom of action that terrorist forces enjoyed in Afghanistan or to wider terrorism activity. It is in Australia’s national interest to remove the safe havens for extreme Islamic terror groups capable of extending their influence into Australia’s region. If Islamic extremists cannot train, cannot access finance, cannot access weapons and cannot access radical mullahs, then they are less likely to turn their radical rhetoric into radical action.
If there is any doubt as to the threat of radical Islamism, the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System, a database run by the United States National Counterterrorism Centre, as at 10 October this year, has logged 17,833 separate terrorist attacks across the world perpetrated by Islamic extremists since September 11, 2001. Indeed, Islamic terrorism appears to be growing more united, with sectarian groups, anti-Indian groups, Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban, al-Qaeda and separatists sharing a joint narrative of extreme Islam and anti-Western sentiment. Afghanistan remains one of the frontlines in the fight to freely enjoy our very way of life.
This is why one of the principles of Australia’s National Security Statement is to support the United Nations in its efforts to promote a rules based international order. The start of any such rules based order has to be freedom. Australia’s National Security Statement is also clear that:
Our alliance with the United States will remain our key strategic partnership and the central pillar of Australian national security policy.
We therefore have a responsibility to join with the United States and its partners to maintain and strengthen this alliance. In simple terms, friends do not desert their friends; they stand by them and support them, knowing that if the positions were reversed they would stand with us. US hegemony within our Asia-Pacific region is fundamental to regional and Australia’s security, particularly given an increasingly engaged China that is focused on disputed territory sovereignty and enhanced regional influence and is committed to a 20-year military build program. This will require a strong and credible US as a counterbalance, not a US damaged from defeat in Afghanistan. Our regional security remains predicated on the US’s capacity to take decisive military action if required.
Finally, seeking and maintaining a degree of stability within the Middle East more generally remains paramount. Failure in Afghanistan would significantly boost the stocks of the Taliban operating in nuclear armed Pakistan. The challenges that an emboldened and unrestrained Taliban would bring upon Pakistan would be substantial and severe. A failing and weak Pakistan would be a significant problem for India and thus a significant regional issue.
The current Australian mission builds on the wider ISAF mission in Afghanistan mandated by the UN Security Council. Our mission in Afghanistan is clearly defined and constrained. Importantly, it is not to kill every Taliban in Oruzgan, it is not to secure the whole of Oruzgan; it is to train the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade to take over security of the population areas of Oruzgan, using our Mentoring Task Force to achieve that; to carry out reconstruction activities as part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team, the PRT; and, with the Afghan National Security Forces, to fight the tough battles that are needed to secure the population centres, using our Special Forces. It is important that the nation realise that we simply cannot kill our way to victory on the battlefield. Only a coordinated military and political strategy aimed at providing population-centric security, building and training the Afghan security forces, creating a functioning government and active civilian led societal reconstruction will achieve our objective in Afghanistan.
Accepting the two- to four-year time frame for the commitment of military forces means that over this time our military must reduce and that the civilian Provincial Reconstruction Team must grow, the overall intent being that the Afghan National Army must assume responsibility for security and Australia’s military forces will withdraw and/or provide a limited overwatch capability. This is not dissimilar to the time lines for Australian forces in Bougainville and East Timor. It is worth noting that we entered East Timor in 1999 and have just deployed another rotation, 11 years later. We entered the Bougainville crisis in December 1997 and left in August 2003 after six years, though Australian forces were engaged as early as 1994. These things simply take time.
We acknowledge that the progress in a counterinsurgency strategy will be very gradual and advances will be achieved village by village and day by day. This assessment was also made by General Petraeus on 14 September 2010, when he was reported as saying that American and coalition troops are nevertheless making headway with ‘hard fought gains’ against insurgents but that it remained tough going.
The current surge strategy has resulted in a large number of insurgents killed and a large number forced to retreat from areas that were formally under strict Taliban control. The net result is that more and more Taliban are being forced into areas where they have not previously been the dominant group.
Substantial progress has been made in not only the security situation, where Australian aggressive patrolling with Afghan forces is dominating much of the population areas, but also in improving health, education and other vital infrastructure within Tarin Kowt, the capital of Oruzgan. Over 1,200 Afghan males have been trained through our trades training school, with one man walking 100 kilometres to ensure his son could enrol. Six hundred boys now attend the rebuilt Tarin Kowt boys school. With female literacy in the province at about 0.1 per cent, the picture of hundreds of little girls at school is nothing short of a delight. Progress is measured in stories such as these.
Yet there is also no hiding from the challenges that hinder us, and they are substantial. The Karzai government needs to significantly improve its levels of legitimacy and governance beyond the major cities and into the regional areas where the Taliban still wield considerable influence. This will require political engagement with the Afghan Taliban, warlords and tribal elders that may well lead in the future to political power-sharing to seek consensus. There is much water to go under this bridge. But the recent provision of safe conduct for Taliban leaders to talk with President Karzai is a case in point. Coupled with this is the need for the Karzai administration to rid the country of the endemic levels of corruption at all levels of government.
Mentoring the Afghan 4th Brigade is slow. The 4th Brigade soldiers are on three-year contracts and the majority are northern Afghanis who have limited ability to get home on leave, making the re-signing of these soldiers to further contracts challenging but necessary. This will require banking systems to send money home, transport corridors and roads so that these soldiers can travel home on leave and a significant increase in the literacy and numeracy of soldiers. Frankly, you need to be able to read a map to call in fire support.
With upwards of 80 per cent of the world’s heroin coming from Afghanistan, and over 15 per cent of Afghanis directly involved in the poppy industry, the transition to more standard cash crops and the removal of the poppies, which represent the major source of funds for the Taliban and the warlords, is paramount. NATO will need to agree on a strategy that is acceptable, implementable and achievable.
Let us never forget that Australian soldiers, sailors and airmen in the combat zone are doing an amazing job in difficult and dangerous circumstances. The terrain is inhospitable, the weather harsh, the dust in summer overbearing and the Islamic extremist enemy resilient. Yet, despite all of this, our forces are boxing above their weight. Our Special Forces operations strike fear into the Taliban to the point where the enemy will break contact or manoeuvre rather than face our ‘ghosts at night’. Our troops are meeting the challenge of deploying to remote patrol bases as part of operational mentoring and liaison teams, which include Afghan forces, and they are engaging with the enemy as part of the training and mentoring of these forces. The level of trust we have built up with Afghan forces is substantial.
It is important to note that the best time to withdraw troops is after achieving the mission for which they have been sent, and this is how success will be measured. Success will be measured by a 4th Brigade capable of independent operations in securing the provincial population centres and only requiring a very small ongoing Australian military overwatch, similar to what Australia currently provides in East Timor and the Solomons. Success will be measured by relatively secure population centres where civilian reconstruction teams have a degree of freedom of action. Success will be measured by a well-trained and active provincial response company of the Afghan National Police that can deal with outbreaks of violence. Success will be measured by an active provincial reconstruction team delivering better governance, services and infrastructure.
The coalition accepts the government’s assessment that it will take a further two to four years to see the transition of security responsibility to the Afghan 4th Brigade, to allow the provincial reconstruction to increase and to allow Australian military forces to reduce and pull back to overwatch. The coalition supports this strategy and accepts the government’s view that the military objectives are achievable in the time frame. We accept the assessment of the capability required to achieve the mission as enunciated by the Australian commanders on the ground.
We also acknowledge that Australian forces in Afghanistan are stretched and cannot do more than the current mission without any extra resources. We reiterate our call to the government that the coalition will look to support any and all force protection elements the military, and indeed the government, believes it may need to prosecute the mission. A good example of this bipartisan support is our call for the counter rocket, artillery and mortar system that the government acknowledged and funded in the May 2010 budget. We remain strongly bipartisan in our support for the mission and our troops but we will continue to hold the government to account as the situation dictates. The artificial cap of 1,550 troops in Afghanistan is a case in point and I strongly urge the government to shift any cap to the wider 2,350 deployed troops in the Middle East to allow our Australian commander the flexibility to use his entire force as needed.
Australia’s engagement in Afghanistan is just and justifiable. Our forces operate under a UN mandate in partnership with 47 nations after the invocation of section 5 of the ANZUS treaty. Our mission is defined and constrained and, importantly, is achievable. The next two to four years will see responsibility for security transition to the 4th Afghan Brigade and a subsequent growth in the civilian reconstruction team as the security situation improves. The strategy is working. Our professional military commanders have assured the government and the opposition that our military and civilian force requires no extra resources to achieve the current mission. What is now required is the courage of our convictions to hold the course, achieve the aim and strengthen our national security, which is the absolute basis upon which we have deployed forces to Afghanistan.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the bravery of the Australian troops, the police and the civilian officers who have served in Afghanistan since 2002. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the 21 fallen Australian soldiers and extend my condolences to their families. These soldiers have served their nation with great distinction and we honour their memory. I also wish to acknowledge and pay tribute to those wounded in this war.
As the Prime Minister yesterday and the Minister for Defence today have stated clearly, Australia has two vital national interests in Afghanistan: to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists and to firmly stand by our alliance commitments to the United States. The primacy of Australia’s long-term security interests are inherent in the decision to participate in the war in Afghanistan. We are there together with 46 other countries forming the International Security Assistance Force, known as ISAF, and operating under a United Nations mandate. This is therefore an international effort to stabilise Afghanistan and to prevent it from again becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To this end, a combined military and civilian effort is necessary to help build the capability of Afghan national security forces so that they can take responsibility for managing the security of Afghanistan. We are also supporting governance and development efforts that will strengthen the capacity of the Afghan government to deliver critical services.
The purpose of the Australian military and civilian mission is clear and it is resolute. It is to help build an Afghan military and policing capacity able to manage Afghanistan’s security, guard against violent extremism and avoid a return to the conditions that existed before 2001. This will also help protect the Afghan people, who yearn for peace and prosperity but for too long have been held back by protracted war and instability. The fear of terrorists or insurgent violence has, over the years, created both bloody and psychological obstacles to the ability of many Afghans to live a decent life. The Australian Federal Police are making an important contribution to Afghanistan by mentoring, training and developing the Afghan National Police. This is a vital element of the international mission to build stability, establish the rule of law and prepare the government of Afghanistan to take lead responsibility for its own security and policing.
As part of this historic parliamentary debate, I wish to highlight the importance of the contribution of the men and women of the Australian Federal Police to Australia’s civilian effort in Afghanistan and, so it is more widely understood, to outline both the challenges and the progress that has been made since the AFP presence commenced in 2007. My insight into this effort was greatly enhanced by the privilege of visiting Afghanistan in May this year. I was able to personally thank the AFP contingent for their good work and to hear firsthand of local conditions and challenges that confront the military and civilian mission. I was able to learn from them of the Australian troop bravery and the bravery of the Afghan people in their quest to overcome the Taliban insurgency.
On my visit to Tarin Kowt an AFP officer recounted an extraordinary story of a woman currently serving as an officer of the Afghan National Police elsewhere in the country. The woman had been preceded in her role by two other female officers. The first woman to occupy the role had been killed. She was not killed as part of her general policing duties but deliberately targeted and killed by those who do not wish to see an Afghan woman in the workforce, let alone as a serving police officer. This woman was then replaced by another female police officer who was also threatened and subsequently killed. The third woman to take up the role had also been threatened with death but, even knowing of the dangers, she remained in the role. Her courage, quite simply, is astonishing.
Without security in daily life there can be no enduring quality of life. Without a capable local police force, criminals and terrorists will prosper. In too many parts of Afghanistan the effects of the insurgency have restricted the ability of women and girls to participate fully in public life, including to work or study. Without advances in the fundamental rights of men and women there can be no true civil society. In collaboration with international and Australian partners, the AFP is working on the ground to support the development of police and law enforcement institutions that will provide the Afghan people with that basic security so necessary to human wellbeing.
The AFP commitment to Afghanistan began small with an initial deployment of just four personnel in October 2007. Two of these members mentored Afghan National Police as part of the US led Combined Security Transition Command—Afghanistan, while the other two members provided training and mentoring support to the Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan. The AFP commitment grew to eight members between October and December 2008 with an emphasis on counternarcotics. Operation Contago, as this mission was called, saw AFP members deployed to criminal intelligence and strategic advisory roles within Regional Command South which included Oruzgan Province.
In April 2009 the government announced a refocus of the strategic objectives in Afghanistan and, in support of this, an additional 10 Australian Federal Police personnel were deployed. This deployment marked the birth of the AFP’s second mission to Afghanistan, namely, Operation Synergy, under which members acted as advisers to ANP training staff at the provincial training centre at Camp Holland, Tarin Kowt. The increased civilian commitment to Afghanistan was in response to the renewed ISAF strategy which increased priority for protecting key population centres and implementing a more effective civilian partnership with the Afghan government. The AFP, together with their colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AusAID and Defence, form part of the provincial reconstruction team—under Combined Team Oruzgan,—which coordinates all ISAF civilian activities in the province.
DFAT officials build relationships with key tribal leaders and political actors and assist the coordination of Australia’s whole-of-government efforts. AusAID development advisers engage with the Afghan government to design and monitor a growing suite of stabilisation and development activities focused on health, education, agriculture, water and basic infrastructure. The ADF contribution includes a force protection element as well as personnel for the trade training school and the ADF managed works team.
In July this year, in further keeping with Australia’s commitment to increase its civilian contribution to Afghanistan, operations Contago and Synergy were amalgamated into a single and larger mission, Operation Illuminate. Operation Illuminate provides for the deployment of 28 AFP capacity development and training specialists to various posts throughout the country with a primary focus on Oruzgan province as part of ISAF’s Combined Team Oruzgan. The ISAF that Australia is part of has a clear strategy. It is to protect the civilian population; train, mentor and equip the Afghan National Security forces and the Afghan National Police to enable them to assume a lead role in providing security; and facilitate improvements in governance and socioeconomic development by working with the Afghan authorities to strengthen institutions, deliver basic services and generate income-earning opportunities for its people.
The AFP mission is a critical enabler to this strategy and has clear goals in Afghanistan, namely to help build a viable Afghan police force and to help build Afghan civil society. The first goal is being met directly by the training and mentoring the AFP undertakes with the Afghan National Police. The second goal is being served through the less publicised AFP contribution to the international counternarcotics effort in Afghanistan and through the collaborative work it undertakes with its Australian civilian counterparts. Working to build police capability both in front line community policing and in combating organised crime is a key goal of the Australian government’s capacity-building effort. Young girls will fear going to school, women will not be able to participate in the workforce and young men will not be able to avoid the lure of violent fundamentalism without an effective Afghan police service that can ensure safety, protect the population, combat criminality and allow legitimate trade and commerce to prosper.
The Afghan National Police face immense challenges. Policing in Afghanistan is limited by a range of factors, including a low education base and very low literacy levels, poor police training, inadequate equipment, poor governance, tribal affiliations and infiltration by criminal or insurgent elements. This also results in lack of public confidence. Our first challenge is to address this lack of public confidence. Our second challenge is that some ANP officers are beholden to corruption and in some cases they are drug dependent. The third significant challenge centres on access to justice. Women in Oruzgan province, where the AFP is mainly based, have almost no access to justice and suffer from poor knowledge of their rights. There are only three female ANP officers in Tarin Kowt province, but this is three more than 12 months ago. In the last three years the AFP have trained a total of 682 ANP officers. These officers are being deployed across the country. While efforts to build public confidence will be slow, we are seeing real progress. In addition to the basic police training, the AFP has also provided advanced investigations training to 143 personnel at the Afghan Major Crimes Task Force in Kabul and it is anticipated that an additional 1,000 ANP will be provided with basic or advanced investigations training next year.
Growth of the Afghan National Police is ahead of schedule, with the ANP having reached its October target of 109,000 personnel three months ahead of schedule. The Afghan Minister of Interior’s goal for the Afghan National Police is that within five years the people of Afghanistan will consider their police to be a valued institution which is honest, accountable, brave, impartial and striving to create a secure and lawful society. Whilst that may be hard to imagine now, growth of the Afghan National Police is ahead of schedule, with the ANP on target to hit its 2011 target of 134,000 officers. While the challenges the Afghan National Police force face are enormous, the reality is that the gains we are making by training and building local police capability will be lasting gains.
The AFP’s secondary but significant effort concerns counternarcotics. The AFP also works to influence the development of strategic policy through involvement and placement in local and multilateral fora. Nationally the AFP participates in the senior police advisory group which provides guidance and advice to the Afghan Ministry of Interior. Regionally the AFP participates in Afghan national security forces development cell, which provides Regional Command South in Kandahar with direction and advice on governance and structural reform of the ANP. Locally, through its contribution to Combined-Team Oruzgan, the AFP shapes, influences and directs police reform in Oruzgan by coordinating training programs and ensuring that all localised training is in line with national programs.
Like its international partners, the AFP recognises that Afghanistan’s narcotics industry poses a major threat to stabilisation efforts by fuelling the Taliban-led insurgency and undermining governance. The impact of the narcotics industry, however, does not stop at the Afghan border. Studies estimate that as much as 90 per cent of global opium production occurs in Afghanistan. The adverse socioeconomic impacts of the narcotics industry extend far beyond Afghanistan’s borders, including to Australia. While it is difficult to state precisely how much of the heroin entering Australia comes from Afghanistan, the fact that such a significant proportion of the world’s opium begins its journey in Afghanistan has a clear consequence for Australia and it is why we are dedicated to the eradication of opium cultivation and associated crimes.
Through mentoring and training, AFP members and coalition partners work to develop an Afghan national investigations capability to target high-level corruption, kidnapping and organised crime, including drug trafficking. In addition to 21 Oruzgan based members, like other Australian government agencies the AFP supports its Oruzgan effort through the strategic placement of members in Kabul, the hub of national police and decision making, and Kandahar, the headquarters of Regional Command South. To this end, four AFP members in Kabul and three in Kandahar are working to effectively shape and influence national policing strategies and policies in Oruzgan province.
One sign of the AFP’s effectiveness is that a number of the Afghan National Police trainers who have been trained by the AFP are now working at the provincial training centre in Oruzgan, providing training to Afghan police recruits. ANP officers who had received training under the AFP program show increased adherence to practices learned following completion of training. In addition, there have been clear quantitative improvements such as higher attendance rates, adherence to uniform standards and retention of staff. Although these achievements may sound small, we recognise that building a local police force is a challenging endeavour, and they are in fact significant when considered within the social and occupational context to which I referred earlier.
The AFP, Australian partners and international partners will continue to promote the rule of law through justice and security reform. Like AusAID, the AFP continues to rely on the provision of security by the ADF. The longevity of Australia’s civil commitment is therefore intricately tied to the training and mentoring of the Afghan National Army. This gets to the very heart of the relationship between the rule of law and the development of a civil society. Without security, there is no development. Without an ongoing international effort to support the challenge of local police reforms, Afghanistan will continue to be inhospitable to its citizens and pose a continuing threat to the global community.
The strategic objective of ISAF is to deny extremists and terrorist groups a safe haven in Afghanistan. The effort in Afghanistan is about simultaneously helping the government of Afghanistan take responsibility for its own security and defending Australia’s security interests. Our support, training and development are critical enablers in achieving these objectives. This government is committed to assisting the Afghan government to assume lead responsibility for governance and the delivery of basic services, including policing, within a reasonable time frame.
There does remain a significant challenge, and we need to be realistic about the speed and consistency of progress. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, ‘we should be cautiously encouraged’ by progress to date. Helping to build an effective and legitimate Afghan national police force is now part of the core of our efforts in Afghanistan. Without security there can be no flourishing of a civil society. Without freedom of movement there can be no economic development, no access to services and no opportunity to be transformed by education. Without stability, people are denied their fundamental right to participate in social, economic and political life. Put simply, the absence of security and stability makes it impossible to build a safe and functioning nation. These are not easy tasks, but they are tasks that we can and should continue to support.
I never had an opportunity to ask that Afghan police officer why, despite knowing that the two before her had died, she was willing to risk her life. But I can imagine her response. Until that police officer and other women like her are no longer targeted because of their gender and because they want a peaceful and just society, we still have work to do. The Gillard government’s primary responsibility is to defend and secure Australia and its citizens. Helping to develop the rule of law in Afghanistan is consistent with this objective, and the Afghan people deserve no less.
I welcome this opportunity to make some comments, following those of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, about Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. After nine years of war, it is quite remarkable that this is the first time that this parliament has had a comprehensive debate on our commitment in Afghanistan. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the Australian people do not have a good understanding of why we are in this fight, what it means for Australia, why it is vitally important for our national interests and why this is a commitment that we must see through to its conclusion.
Firstly, I acknowledge those Australian soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in our name. These brave men died doing what the Australian military has always done—that is, standing up for the weak against the strong and standing up for the very best of Australian values. All our men and women do us proud, and our troops in Afghanistan join a long honour roll of Anzacs, who have always done what has been asked of them by the Australian people. Because the government and the parliament are asking our soldiers and policemen to take these risks and, of course, to pay such a significant price, we as a parliament owe it to them to display a clear understanding of why they have been asked to undertake this mission and to fully explain it to the nation. I hope this debate today will go some way towards accomplishing that.
I also want to acknowledge the more than 100 Australians who have died in terrorist attacks in the past decade: those who died in the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, in the Bali bombings in 2002 and 2005 and in the Jakarta bombings in 2004 and 2009. These people had done nothing to warrant being murdered in such a callous and evil way, and we must remember that the perpetrators of these crimes had been trained by and received funding from terrorist elements in Afghanistan. I believe that most members of this House support our commitment of troops and policemen to Afghanistan, although I know that this is not a unanimous view, and of course every member is entitled to form their own conclusions. However, I want to outline why I think it is vital that we define what an end point in this conflict is, that we commit to it wholeheartedly and that we see our commitment through to a conclusion. Australia first committed to fight the war in Afghanistan in 2001 after the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York. The former Prime Minister, John Howard, happened to be in Washington at that time, and the Australian government was quick to denounce and respond to the attacks with the Prime Minister’s offer of condolences to the American people on behalf of Australia. On 14 September 2001, he stated:
The Australian people have been shocked and outraged at the enormity of the terrorist attacks on the United States. These heinous crimes have caused catastrophic loss of life, injury and destruction. We anticipate that a significant number of Australian nationals are included among those who lost their lives.
… … …
The Government has decided, in consultation with the United States, that Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty applies to the terrorist attacks on the United States.
… … …
This action has been taken to underline the gravity of the situation and to demonstrate our steadfast commitment to work with the United States in combating international terrorism.
The Australian parliament supported this decision on 17 September 2001. At that time, Afghanistan hosted significant terrorist training infrastructure, including camps and the leadership of the al-Qaeda terrorist network. The majority of that country had been ruled for the previous five years by the Muslim fundamentalist Taliban regime. The terrorist camps and infrastructure there had been targeted previously by the United States, during the Clinton administration in the late 1990s, in response to proof that they had been used to make terrorist attacks on United States interests. But, sadly, the missile attacks never actually eradicated this infrastructure. The existence of these camps made Afghanistan terror central. It became a hub of terrorist activity that spread its tentacles globally. Hambali, the terrorist who is now in Guantanamo Bay but who masterminded the murder of 202 civilians in Bali and planned the attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, was trained in Afghanistan during this time.
The Taliban regime unleashed a wave of terror on the Afghan people during their five-year rule. According to Human Rights Watch, the abuses include summary executions, the deliberate destruction of homes and the confiscation of farmland. The Taliban massacred noncombatants when they made military advances, often in the most brutal ways. They subjected women to barbaric totalitarian laws that banned them from education and work and even from appearing in public alone. Ethnic minorities were subject to systematic abuse by the Taliban regime. The regime allied itself with the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and this alliance remains in force to this day.
Ensuring that the Taliban can never return to power in Afghanistan and allow Afghanistan to once again become a safe haven for terrorists is the primary goal of Western involvement in Afghanistan. It was from these camps that terrorists trained, planned, funded and then launched attacks that killed thousands of innocent civilians in the United States, in Indonesia, in the United Kingdom, in Spain and in other parts of the world. Many of these victims, the people who have been killed, were Australian. The intervention of the West in Afghanistan and the change of regime has closed this terrorist infrastructure down and it has severely limited the ability of al-Qaeda and its affiliates to kill and maim more people. A premature withdrawal would allow these organisations to re-establish their infrastructure and to again threaten our interests, so we need to be very clear that Australian troops who are undertaking operations in Afghanistan are directly protecting Australian lives from terrorist attack. They are doing this specifically by securing Oruzgan province, by defeating and dismantling al-Qaeda and its allies and by training the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police to successfully do the same once Western forces eventually withdraw.
The mission is a hard one. Afghanistan is a very tough country with a very difficult history. As has been widely acknowledged, the Afghan government is far from perfect, but we must remember that in the context of Afghanistan it is far superior to any alternative. We have so far sustained significant casualties and the truth is that we will certainly sustain more if we remain committed to the task. But progress is slowly being made. Terrorists can no longer operate with impunity to threaten Western interests and lives. The capability of the Afghan government and Afghan forces continues to improve. Over time, they must and they will take more responsibility for their own security. General Petraeus, the distinguished commander of the International Security Assistance Force and the general who oversaw the successful surge strategy in Iraq, has confirmed that progress in Afghanistan is slow but is happening. He has compared it to watching paint dry or watching grass grow. Australian commanders on the ground confirmed to the Leader of the Opposition and also, I understand, to the Prime Minister on their recent visits that the West and the Australian forces are making gains. ISAF tactics are constantly evolving and we are learning to be more effective both militarily and politically as time goes by and the commitment continues.
For those who would say that we should end our contribution to this conflict, I would ask them to consider the consequences of leaving without completing this difficult job. Defeat or a perceived defeat would have significant consequences, not all of which could possibly be identified today—firstly for the Afghan people who would be abandoned by their allies to their fate at the hands of the Taliban, who would no doubt continue to brutalise them and no doubt take retribution on those Afghans who had allied themselves with Western forces in the belief that we were committed to helping them to stabilise their country. Terrorist elements would be able to re-establish themselves to again menace our people and our interests. There are wider strategic issues that would come into play. Australia would be seen as an unreliable ally. Fundamentalist Muslim groups across the whole globe would be boosted and the enemies of the West would be emboldened. It is impossible to say what would result from this, but it is a reasonable assumption that the consequences of just upping and leaving could be felt on Australian soil and on the soil of other Western nations.
In the time I have left, I want to turn specifically to the commitment that the Australian Federal Police are making in Afghanistan, and I acknowledge the comprehensive account that was given by the Minister for Defence prior to me of the great work that they are doing there and the fact that he has visited and seen firsthand the contribution that the Australian Federal Police are making to the rebuilding of Afghanistan. Whilst a lot of the attention given to our involvement there has been on the ADF deployment, the AFP are providing vital assistance to our Afghan allies in other crucial areas. The Australian Federal Police’s International Deployment Group manages the deployment of Australian and Pacific Islander police overseas on peacekeeping and capacity-building operations for both the AFP and the United Nations. Since it was established in February 2004 the International Deployment Group has played a vital role in meeting ongoing regional security requirements and has deployed members to Afghanistan, Cambodia, Cyprus, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Sudan, East Timor, Tonga, Vanuatu and the United Nations.
The work the AFP does in Afghanistan is an important element of the overall international effort to build stability and to establish the rule of law in a country that has been torn apart by decades of conflict. They worked alongside a team of professional Australians, including Australian Defence Force personnel, as part of Australia’s contribution to the effort. The AFP have been involved in training over 600 Afghan National Police officers in the Oruzgan province. The additional AFP officers who have recently been deployed will be assisting in the development of the provincial training centre in Tarin Kowt.
As well as police training and mentoring in Oruzgan, the AFP in Afghanistan are involved in activities designed to contribute to the development of the Afghan National Police capacity and in reinforcing the rule of law through placements in Kabul and Kandahar. The Afghan police come in to these training programs for approximately six weeks. They are taught a range of policing skills and also issues around human rights and the way that the rule of law should be enforced.
Since 2007, the AFP have also been involved in Afghan counternarcotics efforts. More than 90 per cent of the world’s opium is cultivated in Afghanistan and, according to United Nations reports, poppy production continues to increase. The large-scale production of opium in Afghanistan continues to fuel the Taliban-led insurgency, threatening regional and international security, and is the cause of human suffering around the world.
The AFP are a world-class police force and they possess policing skills that are proving valuable to the mission, including strong leadership, management, planning and police operational experience. Their contribution will help to provide the foundations of a democratic and civil society for the Afghan people. It takes a well-trained and dedicated police force to protect basic human rights and deliver safety and security to its citizens. The creation and maintenance of peace will allow the Afghan people to establish their homes and families without risk.
As a member of the international community we have an obligation to promote and maintain peace through promoting the rule of law in Afghanistan. The AFP deployment demonstrates the strength of our commitment to Afghanistan and ensures their wealth of knowledge will be passed on to a country that desperately needs it. What the AFP are doing in Afghanistan will have a significant impact on the ability of the Afghan National Police to implement good governance and policing practices now and into the future, once the AFP and other Western elements come home.
The AFP have a wealth of experience and expertise in this field. They have hundreds of members deployed to peacekeeping and capacity-building missions around the globe. The AFP’s previous experience tells us that it is possible to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. The AFP’s involvement in East Timor, for example, has slowly but surely helped people get on with the business of improving their lives after a period of terrible and destructive violence. Similarly, in the Solomon Islands the experience of the AFP is another example of how a concerted whole-of-government effort can have a positive impact on improving the rule of law and improving peoples lives. Whilst there is still work to do in both of these areas, as a result of the AFP’s efforts, governance practices are improving, jobs are being created and investors and economic activity are starting to return to these locations.
The successes of the AFP in both Timor and the Solomon Islands show that it is possible for them to create tangible benefits for the people of countries that have been affected by devastating conflict. I am confident that those abilities that have been shown on these other international deployments can continue to make a real difference to the lives and the individuals who they meet during their deployment to Afghanistan. On behalf of the opposition, I acknowledge the AFP for their efforts and to wish all the officers who are deployed on that mission a successful mission and a safe return home.
Through the efforts of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Federal Police, Australia is demonstrating its capacity to play an active role in enhancing international security, both with our allies and with the wider international community. This important and overdue debate that we are having in the House today should also honour the Australian casualties that have occurred so far. We owe it to them to remain confident that the cause for which they have sacrificed is a worthy cause. We must also acknowledge the Australians who died in the September 11 attacks, the 88 who were killed in the first Bali bombing and the eight Australians who have been killed in other acts of terrorism since then. Our soldiers and AFP officers are in Afghanistan because terrorists train there and then from there they target innocent people, including Australians. The premature withdrawal of the mission and the return of the Taliban government would swiftly restore Afghanistan to being a sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists.
The opposition is committed to helping Afghanistan transition to become a country that has the capability to supply its own security. Our commitment cannot be open-ended. If that were the case it would amount to a Western takeover rather than to helping the Afghan people to create the conditions for security for themselves. At the same time, I believe it would be a mistake to set a withdrawal date in stone as this would allow the Taliban simply to wait it out and wait patiently for the day when Western forces withdraw to a predetermined timetable, rather than withdrawing once they had completed their mission. We must complete the task of training the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police, and we must help to ensure that the central government in Afghanistan is capable of containing and defeating the insurgency. In doing so, we will be able to leave at some time in the future, but we will be able to leave secure in the knowledge that we have made Afghanistan a better place and also, very importantly, that we have secured vital Australian national interests.
Let me begin by thanking the Prime Minister for extending to the House the opportunity to debate the progress of our forces deployed in Afghanistan and to reaffirm the cause for which they are fighting. It is in our national interest to be in Afghanistan. We are there as part of a United-Nations mandated international stabilisation effort. We are there to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists to recruit, train and plot attacks against Australia, our friends and our allies.
The mission in Afghanistan is to build the capacity of the Afghan government and the Afghan national security forces to lead and manage their own security. It forms part of our enduring alliance with the United States. It is built on the belief that we build a better world not by clinging to our shores and looking inwards but by working together with those who would fight for the same things that we do. We do not forget the circumstances of our joining the Afghanistan mission: the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which Australians were killed by terrorists given shelter by the Taliban regime. We do not forget that those attacks were followed by the Bali bombing of 2002 in which 88 Australians were murdered and many more were injured. We do not forget the four Australian lives that were lost in the second Bali bombing in 2005 or that our embassy was bombed in Indonesia. We owe those who serve and their loved ones a special duty to put them in harm’s way for only the most substantial and worthy of reasons, armed with the best protective equipment we can provide and using the safest, most effective tactics that we can devise. It is a very big responsibility and one that I know everyone in this place takes more seriously than anything else.
Most of us here, whether our families have been in Australia for half a dozen generations or indeed just one generation, have had our family histories touched by war. Knowing what fate befell our relatives and what pain it can inflict on those who survive, we cannot and do not take the deployment of our soldiers lightly. My grandfather, who fought with Monash and died younger than necessary with his health broken by mustard gas and shrapnel, and my father, who served with the Americans in the Pacific, were such men. The effects of war on those now in Afghanistan and those who have already returned is just as far-reaching as it was to previous generations of Anzacs and we must be conscious of that at all times. Australian personnel deployed in Afghanistan are putting their lives on the line. As all honourable members know, our troops in Afghanistan have paid a heavy price since we first sent in special forces in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Twenty-one Australians have lost their lives. For each of these 21 families that is a profound, personal and irreplaceable, loss. Many others have been wounded or have had their lives changed forever. So it is important that we keep asking ourselves why we are there, what we hope to achieve and whether we actually are achieving our goals.
Our mission, as part of the International Security Assistance Force, is a worthy and important one. Our goal is clear: to deny terrorists a safe haven in Afghanistan. We did not choose this war and we do not fight it alone. In accordance with international law, many countries supported the Afghan people’s efforts to free themselves from Taliban rule and the elements of the terrorist effort they had permitted. Australia joined this battle and we fight for the very best of reasons. Like many others we are making our contribution as part of the International Security Assistance Force. We recognise the regional dimensions. We need to work with Pakistan, Afghanistan and others to counter the terrorist threat.
Failure in Afghanistan would only embolden al-Qaeda and its allies and give them more space to operate. Instability in Afghanistan would only risk feeding instability in Pakistan, and that is why we are working with the Afghan army and police to train them and to help them take responsibility for Afghanistan’s security. That is part of our job. Our work in training and mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade and the Afghan National Police is helping build the capacities of the Afghan national security forces to be able to lead and manage Afghanistan’s security. We do this alongside the United States, New Zealand, Singapore and Slovakia. It is in Australia’s national interest to support this goal because it has a direct bearing on our national security and the safety of our people.
After nine years it is clear that the work our troops and civilians are engaged in is making a difference for the future of the country. With the increase in troop levels, insurgents are being challenged and civilian leadership is being trained. But military force will not be enough. The international community recognises that a political solution is also needed. We continue to encourage Afghan-led processes of reconciliation that can reintegrate into the community those individuals who are prepared to lay down their weapons, renounce violence and support the Afghan constitution. Since the international community began to increase their forces a much more systematic effort has been mounted to reduce the capacities of the Taliban to hold territory and to intimidate the population. These campaigns have not yet achieved all their objectives but in recent months General Petraeus has reported important progress. And the international community is working closely with Pakistan. Stability in Pakistan and dismantling of terrorist networks in the heartlands of both countries is critical to achieving stability in Afghanistan, so it is essential that we continue to engage with Pakistan to address the violent extremism in the broader region consistent with the international strategy.
We know our troops are engaged in dangerous work. That is why the government committed, through the 2009 defence white paper, to ensuring our men and women in uniform have the capability, training and protection they need. We want them to do their job as safely, as effectively and as efficiently as possible. That is why in the 2010-11 budget the government committed an extra $1.1 billion to enhanced force protection measures for Australian troops deployed to Afghanistan. That is aimed purely at saving the lives of, and reducing injuries to, our serving ADF personnel. The government has also committed to real growth in the defence budget of three per cent per year on average to 2017-18, followed by a 2.2 per cent real growth on average through to 2030. This commitment gives defence the long-term funding stability that it needs.
Our role in Afghanistan goes beyond the support we give our military forces on the ground and our international alliances. Military success is an aim but it is not our only goal. Our purpose is to enable Afghanistan to look after its own security and prevent it from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. Part of the International Security Assistance Force’s civilian and military strategy is to support governance and development. We are helping to give the Afghan people a chance to develop institutions and opportunities that will ultimately free them from fundamentalist oppression. We are helping to give the Afghan people a chance to gain the education, health and developmental opportunities that years of war, political instability and fundamentalist prejudice have denied them.
I would like to talk a little about what that means. Since 2002, Afghanistan has begun an enormous political, economic and social transformation after more than two decades of conflict. In 2001, about one million Afghan boys were in school. Afghan girls did not go to school. Today, around six million Afghan children, including around two million girls, go to school. Under the Taliban, less than 10 per cent of the population had basic health services. Now 85 per cent do. Economic growth has averaged 11 per cent a year since 2002, according to the World Bank.
Australia has only played a small part in these early transformations, but our work is critically important. Oruzgan province is one of the least developed provinces in the country. The literacy rate among males is only 10 per cent; among females, it is less than one per cent. Even compared with the rest of Afghanistan, that is extremely low. Our aid program, administered through AusAID, has grown from $26 million in 2001-02 to $106 million this financial year. In 2010-11, our aid will increase to $20 million in the province alone.
Of course, while progress to date has been encouraging, tremendous challenges do remain. GDP per capita remains one of the lowest in the world. Life expectancy is just 44 years. Only 27 per cent of Afghans have safe drinking water and five per cent have adequate sanitation, according to the World Bank. Infant mortality remains high: 111 per 1,000 live births in 2008.
No-one pretends here that there will be a sudden transformation in the lives of people in Afghanistan, but change is occurring. If we were to pull out now and leave our work unfinished, we would unwind nine years of progress and leave Afghanistan once again exposed to the return of Taliban control. The Afghan people would face an even bleaker future. So we provide capacities to degrade the fighting capabilities of their enemies, to train their security forces for the long term and to build social, economic and political infrastructure.
We are in Afghanistan in defence of our own interests, in support of our ally and to deny terrorists safe haven. We are also helping to provide an opportunity for the Afghan people to create a better life for themselves. The young men and women of the ADF who lay their lives on the line need to know how seriously we take this commitment and how seriously we take their commitment. All Australian personnel deployed in Afghanistan are operating in a dangerous environment. They honour our nation by their sacrifice. We honour their sacrifice by pursuing significant purposes.
Our critics are wrong to argue that our objectives are unachievable. The strategy in place is achievable, and we are committed to it. At the centre is the understanding that, in the final analysis, the fate of the Afghan people is properly and exclusively in their own hands. We want to prevent a return to the situation prior to 2001 in the terrorist threat emanating from Afghan soil. Beyond that, the objectives are directed towards empowering the Afghan people to provide for their own security, to develop their own economic and social capacities and to create and sustain their own political systems and processes. It is our earnest hope that, in time, arms can give way to the tools of peace, combat troops to civilian engineers, military aid to ever-increasing amounts of civilian reconstruction aid, and the clearing of roadside mines to the building of more village schools, health centres and places of work. Ultimately, it is our aim that the service of our young men and women overseas will be replaced by their return to their families and their homes in the cities, the suburbs and the country towns here in Australia. I thank the House for the seriousness and the maturity with which this debate is being conducted.
Debate (on motion by Mr Shorten) adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
Nine years ago this month, Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan began. Behind the Vietnam War, it is the second-longest conflict in which Australians have been involved. Thankfully, to date, we have not suffered through the domestic social upheaval or the heavy loss of life of the Vietnam conflict, which saw more than 500 killed in action or lost through other causes. But the tragic deaths of 21 soldiers, the wounding in action of another 152 and the nature of the warfare in Afghanistan and our ongoing role mean that a debate such as this before the parliament is timely and appropriate. There are many views about this war within the community, and it is only reasonable that those views are freely and responsibly aired.
This debate brings back to me memories of another debate in 1991, when parliament was called back for a special sitting to discuss our nation’s involvement in war. As a first term parliamentarian I vividly recall the opportunity provided in January 1991 to debate what was to be the first Iraq war. It was an intense debate. The galleries were full. There were protesters and supporters outside the building. There was deeply felt emotion on both sides, but especially for many Labor members who had fresh memories of their own opposition to the Vietnam War just a few years earlier but who were in a government making a decision to send troops to war. As I said in that debate:
There is no greater exercise of government power than to send the nation’s armed forces to war. There can, therefore, be no more difficult decision for a government or a parliament to make than to participate in or to wage war. In peace-loving civilised countries like Australia, such decisions are only rarely made …
I recall that I was stopped dead in my speech by a number of female protesters in the public gallery who removed their clothes to display the word ‘Peace’ written across their breasts. Perhaps it is the only time any speech I have ever made has evoked such a passionate response. But it was a serious matter then and it is a serious matter now. As I said also in that speech:
There is nothing glamorous about war. It is not like the Hollywood epics. The real war is a horrible thing full of suffering, anxiety and despair. There are no victors, just some who are hurt less than others. War destroys not just enemies and cities and countries, but also lives and families, hopes and ambitions and the plans of a generation. No civilised country would go to war if there were any other options.
Some may say it is easy for members of this House to sit here in comfort and send our soldiers to war. Even though the cause be just, this is not the case. Even though the public may support the Australian commitment, the decision is not easy. No member of parliament can put his fellow Australians in a position of danger without feeling something of the enormity of his action. When I became a member of parliament, I hoped that I would never be asked to participate in a decision on whether or not our country should wage war. I regarded it as just about the ultimately difficult decision that a member of parliament could ever face. So I approach this debate also with a heavy heart but also with a deep consciousness of my responsibility. At present more than 1,500 Australians have answered the call and are serving in Afghanistan, our largest commitment to a theatre since Vietnam. They deserve our respect and the admiration of all our people and we hold the obligation to ensure that they are properly equipped and supported. That care cannot lessen on their return. Too many come back sick of body and mind. We pray that their return will be sooner rather than later.
But it is important that we remember the reasons why we are at war. In 1996 Osama bin Laden moved his terrorist operations to Afghanistan on the invitation of the Taliban. When the Taliban took over power in that country later that year, bin Laden’s own power was cemented and an alliance was formed between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The path that led to the appalling acts of al-Qaeda on 11 September 2001 has been well covered by this House, at the time and in another debate in parliament in March 2003 which was centred on our second commitment to Iraq, so I do not propose to go through those details again. But those actions and the Taliban’s subsequent refusal to bring the terrorists to justice gave the rest of the world no choice but to act. In a sense our involvement in Afghanistan is an extension of the original decision to go to Iraq to quell terrorism and the threat to peace around the world.
We should not forget why Australia was there in the first place—to help secure our country from the threat of terrorism. Terrorists can strike anywhere and take Australian lives, as we saw most tragically in New York in 2001 and Bali in 2002 and 2005. The war against terrorism is a new war. There is no real frontline or trenches or marching armies. This is a war that has cost more Australian civilian lives than military. No-one is immune from the risk anywhere. The Taliban allowed the country they controlled to be used as a training ground for some of the world’s worst, most ruthless and most heartless people. A country that was part of the cradle of civilisation was being raped in modern times by those who wished to destroy civilisation. Let us not therefore weep for the rapists, the Taliban. Its extreme evocations of Sharia law and the demonstrated disrespect of women give it no right to be regarded as a legitimate government, let alone one that deserved the respect or recognition of other countries. The toppling of the Taliban regime was undeniably a good thing, and it remains critically important that the Taliban insurgency that has sprung up in various provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan is contained or stopped.
This parliament is demonstrating a strong unity in its view that we must stay the course in Afghanistan. I recognise that there are individual concerns within each member’s heart, and that is understandable given that we are talking about people’s lives and the frustration of slow progress. Critically, we cannot show weakness. Signalling a premature withdrawal, or that we will be turned by the threat of terrorism, only encourages those who wish to do us harm. It also sends a pathetic message of subservience, and no level of respect to the brave soldiers who have lost their lives or have served in this cause. We want the Afghan people to rule themselves in peace. We do not want a never-ending presence there, or to continue to tell them how to live their lives; but we do want to engender a better society than what has gone before. The appalling manner in which the Taliban treated 50 per cent of its own citizens, its women, is reason enough for Western intervention. The Taliban would never have allowed a political debate like this one where there is a potential for dissent, and indeed such dissent is likely.
There is nothing black and white about this war and our involvement. War always involves shades of grey. Simple nostrums about peace at all costs would not work here as they would never have worked in any other field of conflict. The Taliban has not gone away. Al-Qaeda may not have the same numbers in Afghanistan but it remains only a phone call or an email away. Greater global instability is always possible if we allow it or at least do nothing to try to prevent it. Given that Afghanistan will never have a parliament like this one, has a different dominant religion, has a different approach to democratic ideals and has a long history of vigorously rejecting the advances of other countries, what should we do? Do we recall our troops and leave with a job half done or do we stay the course, especially as our future security depends upon a more secure Middle East? The Nationals, in coalition with the Liberal Party and in cohesion with the Labor Party, have always accepted that this mission in Afghanistan is necessary. None of us here do that with any light-heartedness and nor with any spite. We do not wish to do any unnecessary harm to a country that has already suffered enough. We are all men and women of goodwill and we all wish to leave Afghanistan in a far better place than we found it.
We respect the Australian soldiers who have answered the call of their country to go to Afghanistan. They are serving in the same traditions as their forefathers in our armed forces who went to Anzac Cove, to World War II, to Vietnam and to other conflicts. They have answered the call to help preserve our peace. We respect and honour their role. Whatever differences there may be about a cause, no-one in this parliament should do anything other than respect their contribution and recognise that they are doing their duty for their country. They are responding to their government’s call. The people of this nation want to live in a safe and secure nation and our defence forces play a vital role in that. Indeed it is conflicts like Afghanistan—like the debate we are having now and those we had in 2003 and in 1991—that remind us that we must always be prepared and ready to respond should someone threaten to take our peace away from us. It is folly to allow our defence forces to fall into any kind of decline. It would be folly were we not to ensure that they were adequately equipped to do whatever task they are called upon to do. That is a responsibility for us as legislators and for the government of the day.
I pray for peace in Afghanistan, and in particular for the safe and secure return of our Australian contingent—and soon. But I know that peace will not be found at the wishing well. We have to work for it. Sometimes we even have to fight for it. Once peace is achieved we must then build on it. We must free the world of terrorism and guarantee an enduring peace for this generation and for the future of the world.
Towards the end of last year the Karzai government in Afghanistan passed a law which applies to the country’s minority Shiite population and, in particular, to its women. The law allows police to enforce language that sets out a wife’s sexual duties and restricts a woman’s right to leave her own home. According to US reports, child custody rights still go to fathers and grandfathers, women have to ask, before they get married, for permission to work and a husband is still able to deny his wife food and shelter if she does not meet his sexual needs. The government that passed this law last year is a government we are told that our soldiers should kill and die for.
It is now clear that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won, however you measure victory. It is now clear that the reasons successive governments have given to be in Afghanistan no longer stand up to scrutiny. It is also now clear that the main reason we are there is not to defend democracy or human rights but simply because the United States asked us to go and wants us to remain. And it is now clear that, although our alliance with the United States is important, a simple request is not a good enough reason for our troops to fight and die in an unwinnable and unjustifiable war. This is a decision we must make for ourselves as a country. It is time to bring the troops home. It is time to bring the troops home safely and for Australia to shoulder the burden of Afghanistan’s problems in a new way. And it is time to bring the troops home so they can be honoured for their service and no longer be asked to carry out this unjustified task.
The Greens do not oppose the deployment in Afghanistan based on any absolute opposition to the use of military force or from any lack of commitment to our troops. We led the call for military intervention in Timor Leste and are proud of the role our men and women played in the struggle for freedom and independence in that country. Unlike in many other countries, our defence forces thankfully follow the lead of our political leaders and have little choice in the tasks they are set, so they are doing the job they have been asked to do in Afghanistan.
Already 21 young Australians soldiers have lost their lives, 10 since June this year. That is all the more reason why we should be having this debate and all the more reason why the government should bring the troops home. As the leader of the Nationals said a moment ago, the decision to go to war is probably the most important decision we can make. It is a decision fraught with danger and uncertainty and has great consequence both for the country and the soldiers going to war and for the people and the country with which a war is being fought or is being invaded. And it is a decision that can easily lead to unintended outcomes, peril and blowback for the people of the country whose leaders choose to go to war. It is for those reasons that such a momentous decision should not be left in the hands of the executive alone. This is why the Greens asked for and secured this debate on Australia’s Afghanistan commitment as part of our agreement to support the Gillard government. And this is why my colleague Senator Scott Ludlum has put before the Senate a bill to require a decision of parliament, as well as the government, to underpin any deployment of troops overseas. I can announce today that I will soon introduce the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill into this House.
The United States understands the importance of a check on democracy and ensures that congress needs to back a president’s decision to go to war. Many other countries do something similar, including Germany, Spain, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. We should join them.
The Greens’ bill will require a resolution agreed to by both the Senate and the House of Representatives before members of the Defence Force may serve beyond the territorial limits of Australia, except where emergencies require immediate deployment. The Greens hope that this debate can be a step towards the passage of our bill, which will mean that, once and for all, in the future the Australian people through their representatives will have a say in whether we go to war.
No-one knows exactly how many people have died and been injured in the war in Afghanistan, because in those infamous words of the US military ‘We don’t do body counts’. But we do know that it is in the tens of thousands. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, in the first six months of this year casualties increased by 31 per cent compared with 2009. Nearly every other week there is another story of a massacre or ‘accidental’ killing of civilians—more ‘collateral damage’ in a war in which, like Vietnam, our troops find it harder to tell the difference between insurgents and noninsurgents.
The Afghan war has now been going on for over nine years, almost longer than World Wars I and II combined. We must remember that, in the eyes of many of the people now fighting the coalition forces in Afghanistan, this is a continuation of their fight to remove foreign forces from the country—a fight begun with the Soviet invasion in 1979. The Russians learned, to their great cost, that more than 100,000 troops, backed by an Afghan government, could not win against the Mujahideen. The Leader of the Opposition was right yesterday in saying that, despite the history, we must deal with the world as it is. But we cannot close our eyes to the lessons of the past and be doomed to repeat them. Wilful blindness is no better than wishful thinking.
I know that many Australians ask the legitimate question: what will happen to the population in Afghanistan if we pull out? There is an alternative question: is our being there making the problem worse? Major General Alan Stretton, who served as Australian Chief of Staff in Vietnam and fought in World War II, Korea and Malaya, thinks so. He says that the Afghan population ‘now sees the war as a foreign invasion of its country’. The major general says:
In fact, the occupation is providing a reason for terrorist attacks, and instead of reducing the risk to Australians is actually increasing it.
The Prime Minister said this war may be the work of a generation. If coalition troops are there for another decade, a whole generation of boys and girls will have grown up under occupation, and we must expect all the consequences that may flow from that. On this, I think we should listen to Malalai Joya. In 2005, she was the youngest woman elected to the Afghani parliament. She condemned the warlords of whom the assembly was overwhelmingly comprised. Now, she says:
We are in between two evils: the warlords and the Taliban on one side, and the occupation on the other. The first step is to fight against the occupation—those who can liberate themselves will be free, even if it costs our lives.
Respected defence analysts have said that the process of training the army and police in Afghanistan is far less successful than the government has made out and may never be achievable. The desertion of personnel, infiltration by Taliban supporters and the quality of the troops and police all mean that very few are able to operate without coalition forces in support. According to some recent reports, the attrition rate far exceeds the number of new recruits. None of these problems were explicitly acknowledged in the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, apart from a confident declaration noting the ‘Afghan government’s determination that the Afghan National Security Forces should lead and conduct military operations in all provinces by the end of 2014’.
It is important to note the careful language that is being used here. Afghan troops will ‘lead’ but not take over the full security task, and they hope to ‘operate’ in all provinces but will not be able to take on a full role in those provinces. In short, even by 2014 there will be no self-sufficient Afghan military or police, suggesting that we may be there for much, much longer. The leader of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, summed up his thinking on the length of deployment in this way:
You have to recognise also that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting … You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.
While we talk here of decades and generations, President Obama is reported to have responded to Pentagon requests for more troops by saying:
I’m not doing ten years. I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.
If the US is increasingly asking how much it will cost in lives and money to be successful, and indicating that it will not make that kind of commitment, why are we not doing the same? And what would count as success, anyway? Many have said—and it was repeated yesterday—that we need to be in Afghanistan because of al-Qaeda. But most experts agree that al-Qaeda is now operating from other countries and not Afghanistan. General Peter Gration commanded the Australian Defence Force from 1987 to 1993. He has reportedly described as ‘overblown’ the Prime Minister’s claims that there are direct links between the security of Afghanistan and terrorist threats to Australia.
We now know that al-Qaeda is operating in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, but we do not invade there. Very few, if any, such terrorists are in Afghanistan. In General Gration’s words:
To say that what we are doing in Afghanistan is defending Australians is drawing a very long bow.
Another key justification and strategy of the United States and, in turn, the strategy of the Australian government has been to hold up the Karzai government and make it democratic. Yet this same government passes laws to subjugate women. It is accused of widespread corruption and criminality. In fact, US General David Petraeus reportedly describes the Karzai government as a ‘criminal syndicate’, and Vice-President Joe Biden has asked:
If the Government’s a ‘criminal syndicate’ a year from now, how will troops make a difference?
Successive elections in Afghanistan have been marked by fraud. Recently came an announcement that the latest election results have been delayed because of widespread fraud, with estimates that up to 25 per cent of ballots will be thrown out. When on Monday I asked a question of the Minister for Defence about the alleged criminality of the Karzai government, he dodged the point. Again, yesterday and today, the government has failed to respond directly to General Petraeus’s assessment. It is a crucial point that the government must squarely address.
The ostensible reason that is most often given for why we are in Afghanistan is to fight the Taliban. Some have said that we should stay the course to ensure the Taliban does not become the government. But now we know there are extensive talks between the Karzai government and Taliban leader Mullah Omar and others, aimed at reconciliation and dealing them squarely into government. While pursuing peace and reconciliation is to be commended, and one hopes the process may ease or end the conflict, it somewhat undermines the claim that the Taliban is the enemy that must be opposed at all costs, even the cost of taking and sacrificing lives. And what now of the rights of the Hazaras, many of whom have sought refuge in Australia and whose persecution under the Taliban has continued and may now become entrenched if the power-sharing arrangements hold?
According to Australian defence analyst Hugh White, the real reason the Australian government has troops in Afghanistan is that the United States has asked us. This is why the Greens believe we need a relationship with the United States that is strong but based on autonomy and independence. In the words of Major General Alan Stretton:
Although it is important to remain an ally of the United States, this does not mean that we have to be involved in all American military excursions.
The experience of the British in standing up to American pressure to take part in the Vietnam War was that it did not undermine the British-American relationship. Australia could still retain the support of the United States even if we pursued a more independent foreign policy.
Like most people, I shudder when I hear that the Taliban and now the Karzai government are prepared to legislate for the sexual subjugation of women. But, if we are looking for a tool to spread human rights and democracy, it is folly to think that invading and occupying a country is the answer. Withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan does not mean we must disengage from the country or stop trying to help the Afghan people. We do not advocate leaving without helping those we leave behind. In fact, there are good reasons to be separating our aid efforts from our military activities. The Australian Council for International Development have called for military and development activities to be decoupled. They say increased funds linked to political and military objectives make it less likely we will see lasting and comprehensive community based development outcomes that will meet real needs.
At the moment, the government has its priorities wrong. The Greens believe a withdrawal of Australian military forces from Afghanistan could enable additional aid to be directed to the country, targeted in particular to civil society institutions that foster democracy, sustainable development and human rights. It is time to look at countries like Oman instead of Vietnam or Russia. Unlike its neighbouring conflict-racked terrorist base of Yemen, it has transformed itself. It was a society where only a few decades ago not one girl in Oman was attending school. Now all children are expected to finish high school and the place of women has been transformed, with three of the country’s cabinet ministers being women. The Prime Minister yesterday noted the rise in Afghan girls getting an education. In Oman, girls attend school, read books and surf the internet, without the need for an expensive, unsustainable foreign occupying military force and without the life-shattering effects war can have on children, their education and upbringing. In the words of New York Times journalist Nicholas D Kristof:
… one of the lessons of Oman is that one of the best and most cost-effective ways to tame extremism is to promote education for all.
Malalai Joya, the former Afghan MP I referred to before, knows this. She called for all of our assistance in strengthening civil society in Afghanistan, not the occupation or the corrupt government, saying, ‘Education gives us hope and courage,’ and ‘Open the eyes and minds of the justice loving.’
While others in the world are discussing exit strategies, Australia is writing blank cheques. More and more countries are removing their troops, and we should join them. Earlier in the year, the Netherlands withdrew their troops from the province in which Australia operates, and Canada will leave next year. No-one has doubted their integrity or their commitment to democracy. And even the US and NATO have talked about a time for withdrawal, yet it seems that our Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are unwilling to set a date. Instead the Prime Minister has just committed us for another decade or more of war.
The Greens have a different view. The Greens believe it is now time to bring our troops safely home. The Greens believe the Australian people and our defence forces should not be asked to continue this war for another decade. And the Greens believe that many people in Australia agree with us, with recent polls showing that most Australians want our defence forces personnel brought safely home. If we really want to ensure Afghanistan never again becomes a haven for terrorists, we must encourage education and help strengthen the institutions of civil society. We must foster democracy from below, not imagine we can impose it from above down the barrel of a gun. No matter how much the contemporary trend might be to dress it up in the garb of human rights, an invasion is an invasion, a war is a war. It is a mistake we have made before but not yet learned from. We owe it to our troops, the Australian people and the people of Afghanistan to adopt a different path.
This is an important opportunity to outline for the parliament the reasons for our engagement in Afghanistan. It is not a debate I welcome; it is a debate in which properly one should be involved. It is not a debate about whether or not Australia supports the Karzai government. All of us would agree that a government with the sorts of values that have been mentioned—and I do not dispute those—is questionable. But it does not mean that we should not be involved in Afghanistan. I note that in an outstanding speech by the Leader of the Opposition in response to the Prime Minister’s statement he had this to say:
Afghanistan may never be a Western-style, pluralist democracy. In any event, it is for Afghans, not for outsiders, to reengineer their society from the feudal to the modern. Our broader mission is merely to foster effective governance, at least by Afghan standards, and to ensure that Afghanistan never again hosts training camps for international terrorism. Australia’s particular mission, in Oruzgan and the surrounding provinces, is to strike at active Taliban units and to mentor the Afghan army’s fourth Brigade into an effective military unit loyal to the central government.
It is in that context that this debate needs to be seen. This is not about a war, as the member for Melbourne suggests, that cannot be won. If the view was that wars could never be won, one would stand aside and allow a Nazi regime to dominate the world. I am sure that there were times of great doubt. But people’s determination in that situation never wavered.
The honourable member for Melbourne quoted General Gration to give authority to the proposition that this war that cannot be won is something that we should walk away from. But I notice that in General Gration’s comments, reported by Cameron Stewart in the Australian on 19 October, the general said, ‘Having come this far, we cannot unilaterally walk away.’ They were observations that were not brought to our attention by the member for Melbourne.
I want to take this opportunity to observe that this week I spoke on a condolence motion for the family of Jason Brown. The family are constituents of mine. I grieved at his death, as I grieve for all those young Australians who have lost their lives. But they are not the only funerals that I have attended. I have attended the funeral of a young man whose sister is very closely known by my daughter and who perished in Bali as a result of a terrorist bombing that took the lives of 88 Australians.
Our Afghanistan involvement commenced in 2001 after a most horrendous event that is now ebbing in the minds of many Australians. I do not know whether the honourable member for Melbourne remembers where he was on 9/11. But I know exactly where I was: in a Melbourne hotel room. I came in late, expecting to get Lateline but instead watching planes flying into the World Trade Centre, tragically taking the lives of many thousands of people, including Australians. It was probably one of the most momentous events in my life to see such horrific terrorist acts occurring; such wanton acts that simply took people’s lives as if they meant nothing.
The enormity of that loss was well understood by the Australian community generally. I look back at the comments of former Prime Minister John Howard, when he determined, along with the government, that, in consultation with the United States, article 4 of the ANZUS treaty applies to terrorist attacks on the United States. He spoke later about those events. He noted that in relation to New York, 22 Australians, as well as people from around 80 other nations, 14 of whom were Muslim, died in that attack. He made the point that no-one doubts that the al-Qaeda network, led by Osama bin Laden, was responsible for the attacks and that the Taliban had allowed Afghanistan to become a safe haven for international terrorism. Later, in a speech that he made about al-Qaeda, he had this to say:
Whilst the destruction of the Al Qaida network must be our first priority, the long-term aim of this war is to demonstrate that organised, international, state-sanctioned terrorism will not be tolerated by the world community.
We know that our mission will not be easy. It will be prolonged and against an enemy hiding in the dark corners of the world. An enemy who will falsely portray our objective to destroy terrorism as an assault upon Islam.
The war will be a new kind of war. There will be few, if any, set-piece battles to bring it to an end. Rather it will be a sustained effort, requiring sturdy patience, and the careful marshalling and coordination of resources.
He went on to say that there could be no valid comparison with Vietnam. He made this point:
In contrast, today all the major powers of the world are as one in their opposition to international terrorism. In the present situation, we are not at war with any other nation. We are certainly not at war against any faith or against the people of Afghanistan, who are the victims of the very terrorism that we are opposing.
He made it clear that there was bipartisan support for our engagement in those activities to constrain the potential impact of terrorism upon Australia.
I served in the government of John Howard. I was a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet. I received briefings from our intelligence organisations and publicly was able to say that some 10,000 people from around the world went to Afghanistan for the purpose of training with al-Qaeda. Numbers of those were from Australia. It is clear from the prosecutions that have occurred in Australia that people who have been involved in planning terrorist activities in our country trained offshore in that very situation. Of course, that was not only our experience, it has been the experience in Europe. Australians lost their lives in the London bombings that were orchestrated by people who were similarly aligned.
It is important that we do not allow ourselves to be beguiled by arguments that war is difficult, that the Karzai government has perhaps less credibility than we would like and that we walk away from the effort of ensuring that there is no opportunity for al-Qaeda to operate on that scale again. It has always seemed to me that, as hard as it is, it is more important to fight the battle there and win than to simply walk away and fight a battle here, on our own shores, with even greater tragic consequences.
I have had the opportunity of looking at the strategy in which we have been engaged. It seems to me that it is a strategy designed to serve Australia’s interests and to protect our community. I recognise that we are not involved in this task alone. We are committing in the order of 1,500 Australian troops compared with the United States commitment of 78,430, the United Kingdom, 9,500; Germany, 4,590; France, 3,750; Italy, 3,400, Canada, 2,830; Poland, 2,630; Romania, 1,750; Turkey, 1,740; and Spain, 1,555. This is not something in which we are engaged alone. We are part of the world community dealing with this issue.
I have had the opportunity of visiting Afghanistan to see something of what our troops are doing to train the Afghan troops through the Mentoring Task Force. I had the opportunity of seeing something of our special forces. I was very proud of the way in which young Australians serving their country were undertaking their efforts. When I know of the enormity of the task and when I see them, I am very much persuaded by the reports we receive from those who are involved in planning our operations. General John Cantwell, who briefed me and who also briefed the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition when they visited Tarin Kowt, said, ‘It’s not the time to lose faith, it’s not the time to forsake the loss and the sacrifice and expense and the heartache that’s gone into this.’ Twenty-one Australian troops have died during the Afghanistan deployment. ‘We can’t let Afghanistan become a seat for transnational terrorism,’ he said.
What interested me were the reports I saw this week of the views of Australian families who have lost their loved ones in Afghanistan. In McPhedran’s article in the Courier Mail we see this quote:
The father of a soldier killed in Afghanistan and the partner of another who has just arrived in Oruzgan Province have appealed for a deeper understanding of what our troops are doing in the troubled country.
Gary Bewes and Taryn McGowan made a number of observations. Mr Bewes, whose son Nathan died in conflict, said that he hoped that politicians did not get pressured into pulling out in the short term. ‘It would be a terrible waste of the good work they have done,’ he said. Of course, Miss McGowan was similarly concerned. What a tragic loss of young Australians, who gallantly serve the interests of the nation to protect the lives of other Australians, if we were simply to say now, ‘It’s all too hard and we’re going to walk away.’
I was interested in some of the comments made by Alexander Downer, who served with me on the National Security Committee of cabinet. When writing on these matters in the Spectator recently, he made this observation:
Sudden withdrawal would have disastrous consequences. For the people of Afghanistan it would almost certainly lead to the return of a Taleban regime with all its attendant human rights abuses. It would be perceived by the Jihadist movement around the world as a historic victory and give that movement fresh momentum and hope. And a Taleban-run Afghanistan would have the potential to destroy the stability—such stability as there is—of a fragile regime in Pakistan.
He goes on to say:
Remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. That, in turn, would escalate tensions between India and Pakistan, and who knows where that might lead.
These are issues of very great moment. They are not issues that have been dealt with lightly. The decision to commit was a decision taken seriously by the former government and it has been supported by this government. I think the reasons by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition outlining our engagement were compelling and I strongly support the statement that has been made.
Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I am a Duntroon graduate and a former Army lieutenant colonel. For a time, as you would know, I served as a senior intelligence analyst. I believe in just war and I supported the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan on the grounds that al-Qaeda was involved in the 9-11 terror attacks and so significantly intertwined with the Taliban that any effective US response warranted regime change in Kabul. Unsurprisingly then I am a strong supporter of the Australian Defence Force and have been as saddened as anyone that it is my old battalion, the 6th, based in Brisbane, which has lately borne the brunt of casualties in Afghanistan. I was a platoon commander, the adjutant and then a company commander in 6RAR and understand well the difficulty of the job our soldiers are doing in our name.
On balance, I am also pro US. The United States and Australia are natural allies on account of our common histories, cultures, values and strategic security interests. The US-Australia bilateral relationship is understandably one of Australia’s most important, and I can understand Prime Minister John Howard’s decision to invoke the ANZUS treaty after 9-11. When the US is in strife it is right that we should come to its aid, as in fact we should try to help any country so long as doing so is genuinely within our means and genuinely consistent with our national interests.
But despite all of this I am a vocal critic of the war in Afghanistan and I believe we must bring our combat troops home as soon as possible. When I say ‘as soon as possible’, I envisage a withdrawal timeline carefully planned by military professionals, not by politicians, a timeline which speedily hands military responsibility over to Afghan security forces in a matter of months.
Yesterday the Prime Minister was talking about us still waging war in Afghanistan in 10 years time. That was an extraordinary admission of the difficulties we have gone and got ourselves into, and entirely inconsistent with our national interest. If it were up to me, I would be very concerned with any military plan that still had us fighting in Afghanistan in 10 months time, let alone in 10 years time.
In 2001 Afghanistan was a launching pad for Islamic extremism. But now the country is irrelevant in that regard because Islamic extremism has morphed into a global network not dependent on any one country. Yes, countries like Pakistan are incubators for terrorists, but so are countries like Australia, Indonesia, the United Kingdom and the United States, which now grow their own terrorists. This is a much more worrying situation because it enlarges the threat and buries it deep within us, where it is even harder for the security services to detect.
In 2001 Osama bin Laden was thought to be in Afghanistan. But now no-one knows where he is or even if he is alive or dead—not that it matters anymore, because his ideas have taken hold and grown strong globally. In 2001 al-Qaeda was the world’s most dangerous Islamic terrorist organisation, but now al-Qaeda, like bin Laden, is much less important because it has spawned offshoots directly and inspired other terror groups to crystallise.
The misguided response to 9-11, not the least of which was the failure to finish the job in Afghanistan when we had the chance in 2002, followed by the outrageous invasion of Iraq in 2003, has resulted in a significant baseline number of would-be Islamic terrorists and a global network of small terrorist clusters. In other words, Afghanistan is no longer relevant to Australia’s security in the way it was way back in 2001, and the continued government and coalition insistence that we must stay in Afghanistan to protect Australia from terrorists is deliberately misleading: a great lie which, in recent Australian history, is second only to the gross government dishonesty over Australia’s decision to join in the invasion of Iraq.
Mind you, yesterday and today there have been no shortage of misleading statements in this place regarding our military commitment in Afghanistan. Both the Prime Minister and the opposition leader laid it on thick with 9-11, the Bali bombings and the attacks on our embassy in Jakarta. Yes, a token effort was made by both of them to distance these shocking events from our current role in Afghanistan, but the way they were recounted achieved the speaker’s aim of forming associations in people’s minds and steering listeners towards the conclusion that the terrorist attacks of years ago are as relevant today to our mission in Afghanistan as they were then. If there is in fact any relevance of Afghanistan to terrorism and Australian security nowadays then it is the way in which the ongoing war continues to enrage disaffected Muslims right around the world.
Just last week the Victorian Supreme Court heard that one of the men allegedly plotting to stage an attack at Holsworthy army barracks in Sydney was angry at Australia’s ongoing presence in Afghanistan. According to media reports, one Wissam Fattal discussed a trip by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Germany to hold discussions about the war and was overheard to say, ‘It was shameful that Australian troops killed innocent people.’
If the government and the coalition are going to continue to argue for years more fighting in Afghanistan and deaths then you need to start being honest with the Australian community. Ditch the dishonest terrorism rhetoric and try to sell the real reasons for our seemingly open-ended involvement in a war that has gone from bad to worse over nine years, making it one of the longest wars in Australian history. Only the 13 years of the Malayan Emergency and the 10-year service of the Australian Army Training Team in Vietnam surpass it.
The reality is that the main reason we are in Afghanistan is to support the United States and, by that support, to enhance the likelihood of the US coming to our aid in the event Australia’s security is one day threatened. Such a reason for staying in Afghanistan has appeal to a not insignificant number of Australians. The problem is it is a misplaced appeal because the reality of foreign policy remains that alliances last only so long as interests overlap. So US support for Australia at some point in the future will depend on our usefulness to Washington at that exact point in time. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other supposed downpayments on our American insurance policy will not in themselves necessarily amount to anything. Turning this point around is the reality that Australia is and will remain as important to United States strategic interests as the US is to ours. Our location, political and social stability and inherent security, in part because of our air-sea gap and inhospitable frontiers, combine to ensure Australia is one piece of real estate the US will continue to be prepared to shed blood over.
Some commentators see in the case of New Zealand a demonstration of the perils of saying no to America. But the reality is that Prime Minister David Lange’s decision in 1984 to deny US nuclear ships the right to visit New Zealand did not unplug Wellington from US security arrangements for the simple reason that America had a continuing need to access the material collected by the Waihopai signals intelligence ground station on the North Island. In other words, the bilateral New Zealand-United States security arrangement did continue, albeit in another form, because the security needs of the two countries continued to overlap. All the theatre about New Zealand having been completely cut adrift by the US was just that—political theatre for public consumption, mainly in America. Australia could also continue to rely on United States security guarantees if we pulled out of Afghanistan because we are simply too important to the US’s own security for it to be otherwise. In fact, we would almost certainly be at less risk of being taken for granted in Washington if sometimes we simply said no.
All of this leaves ordinary Afghans as pawns in the strategic game we continue to play out with the United States. Yes, the Afghans in our area of operations have often benefited from the good work of our soldiers, and the Prime Minister’s speech on the war yesterday was a fitting reminder of the local achievements of our soldiers. But let us not kid ourselves: after nine years of war and billions of dollars in foreign aid, a third of a million Afghans are still displaced within that country’s borders while 10 times that number—three million—eke out an existence as refugees, mainly in Iran and Pakistan. Moreover, the central government still fails to exert much control outside Kabul, and the Taliban’s strength is put in the tens of thousands and growing, even though foreign force numbers have now maxed out at well over 100,000 troops. I remember well my visit some years ago to north-east Iran, where I met with some of the Afghan refugees accommodated at one of the camps on the border there. There were thousands in the camp and, even though the conditions were relatively tolerable thanks to Iranian government efforts, the looks on the faces of many of the refugees, including the children, was the stuff of nightmares. Such experiences help explain my compassion for asylum seekers to this day.
Australia’s achievements in Afghanistan are eerily similar to the way in which Australia achieved tremendous results in Phuoc Tuy province in South Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 only to see those achievements eventually steamrolled by the broader Vietnam War debacle. In other words, it does not matter how well we do in Oruzgan Province, because ultimately Afghanistan’s fate is being decided elsewhere.
Another alarming similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam is how these wars were or are propping up deeply corrupt regimes—and this matters. There have now been two elections in Afghanistan in the space of 14 months, and both have been widely ridiculed for intimidation and fraud on a scale completely discrediting the outcomes. At the end of the day, this is the government our soldiers are propping up and dying for. I find that totally unacceptable and something the government still needs to properly explain. No wonder Australian public support for the war and our involvement in it are at such low levels, as evidenced by a poll in June by Essential Media Communications which showed that nearly two-thirds of people wanted the government to withdraw troops from Afghanistan while only seven per cent thought that the number of troops should be increased. Also this year, research by the esteemed Lowy Institute put at 54 per cent the number of people polled who felt that Australia should not continue to be involved militarily in Afghanistan.
Very few members may be unambiguously speaking out against the war, but standing behind those of us who do are the millions of Australians who are concerned about the ongoing war in Afghanistan and feel strongly that it is time to bring the troops home. Every member here needs to understand that, while the number of members speaking against the war in this place is small, the number of people out there concerned about the war is huge. In other words, numerous members are prepared to sit there behind their party’s policy at the expense of genuinely representing the views of their constituents, and that is a shocking breakdown of democracy. Some things should be above party discipline, and this is one of them. Whatever happened to some of you that you are now so ready to sacrifice your soul for your party’s political self-interest?
I also acknowledge those of you who have travelled to Afghanistan to visit our soldiers. But please understand that you have had an intoxicating experience more likely to entertain than to deeply inform the sort of strategic-level analysis and decision making now needed more than ever. The views of our enthusiastic diggers and operational-level commanders are obviously important, but they are only one perspective when it comes to understanding Australia’s strategic interests and the most sensible way to achieve them. That most of our soldiers are keen to stay in Afghanistan does not necessarily make staying there the right thing to do.
One argument for staying in Afghanistan is the need to stabilise Pakistan. But this notion is baseless, because one of the main reasons Pakistan has become increasingly unstable since 2001 is Islamabad’s support for the war. Moreover, one of the reasons the north-west frontier has become so much more problematic is the flow of militants across the border. On balance, pulling out of Afghanistan will help rather than hinder Pakistan. This is something I saw firsthand in 2002, when I visited the Protestant church in the diplomatic enclave in Islamabad which had been attacked by terrorists only days before. The grenade attack, which killed five including the wife of an American diplomat, is a sobering reminder of the dangers faced by our own diplomats overseas, especially in the many countries with heightened levels of Islamic extremism.
The difficulties we face in Afghanistan, especially since they come so soon after the Iraq debacle, throw into question how the decision to wage war is made in Australia. That currently such decisions can be and are made by the Prime Minister acting virtually alone is patently inadequate and potentially disastrous. Decisions are hostage to the competence of an individual with all his or her strengths and weaknesses, ideology and prejudices. There is no mandatory gross error check either at the outset or later on.
This parliamentary debate is a case in point. It is good that we are having it, but we are only having it because of the extraordinary 2010 federal election result and the pressure brought to bear on the new government by a small number of agitators experiencing extra-ordinary political influence. There is a real need for a public and political discussion about this matter because the current war powers arrangement is indefensible. Perhaps, for example, section 51 of the Constitution, which outlines the legislative powers of the parliament, could be amended to include the line ‘to declare war on or make treaties of peace with foreign powers.’ One option I favour is that the decision to go to war should be made by a conscience vote in a joint sitting of the parliament.
The international community, including Australia, confronts a dreadful dilemma in Afghanistan. On the one hand, it could walk away from the seemingly inevitable disaster that would unfold or, on the other hand, it could stay and fight as it plans to in the hope of somehow avoiding a different but equally inevitable disaster. Success will not be measured by capturing the capital—we did that nine years ago and, in any case, civil wars are rarely won that way. No, success will be measured by some sort of consensus among the Afghan community, and that will not be possible until there is a political solution underpinned by an agreement between all the major political groups. In other words, there can be no enduring relative peace in Afghanistan without first negotiating with the Taliban.
The Prime Minister said yesterday she believes Australia has the right strategy in Afghanistan. She is wrong—dangerously wrong. The reality is that the best plan the Australian government can come up with is simply to continue to support whatever the US government comes up with. And that alone is no plan—it is just reinforcing failure. The only way to turn Afghanistan around now is to hastily rebuild the governance, infrastructure, services and jobs which give people hope and which underpin long-term peace. But this appears increasingly unachievable because the foreign troops which anchor such a solution are now seen by many Afghans as the problem. They are prompting a nationalist backlash which is sometimes coalescing around Taliban elements.
That is our dilemma: on one hand, there is an argument for keeping our combat troops in Afghanistan but, on the other hand, we must pull them out. There is no good solution. Whatever we do from here there will be violence and people will die. There is no avoiding that. The only certainty is that Afghanistan will never face the possibility of enduring peace unless it is allowed to find its natural political level. That cannot happen while the Afghans regard themselves as being occupied by foreign powers that are propping up an illegitimate central government.
In closing, I reiterate my support for our soldiers on active service, especially in Afghanistan. Vale Andrew Russell, David Pearce, Matthew Locke, Luke Worsley, Jason Marks, Sean McCarthy, Michael Fussell, Gregory Michael Sher, Mathew Hopkins, Brett Till, Benjamin Ranaudo, Jacob Moerland, Darren Smith, Scott Palmer, Timothy Aplin, Benjamin Chuck, Nathan Bewes, Jason Brown, Grant Kirby, Tomas Dale and Jared MacKinney. You died serving your country and I salute you. May you rest in peace, and may my new colleagues in this place see the sense in ending this conflict now before too many more young Australians are sent to their deaths.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate about our involvement in Afghanistan. The debate is timely as not only has the operation changed since our original involvement commenced in 2001, following the terrorist attacks in New York that year, but the politics have changed as well. Our current commitment to the operation in Afghanistan is our largest current troop commitment. It is our job to question the government to ensure not only that our troops are supported in the operation but also that there is sufficient budgetary appropriation to provide whatever is required by our commanders and advisers in the Department of Defence so that our troops are not let down by a lack of resources for the mission.
We have a right to question. I am not here to criticise; I am here to question the government so that the Australian public can have confidence that our troops are getting the support they need from their government. The people of Australia want to know that. That is why I welcome the statement by the Prime Minister and the opportunity to talk openly in the parliament about our commitment to the operation in Afghanistan.
I acknowledge and admire the professionalism of our troops because they operate in the time-honoured way of our history. They are like the Anzacs of long ago; they are our Anzacs of today. They rank amongst the best soldiers in the world. They are professional, they are good at their job and they are dedicated. It is not sufficient to just support the troops; we must support the objectives of the operation. The coalition has always supported the troops and the operation.
I had the opportunity as chairman of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to go to Afghanistan in 2002, under Operation Enduring Freedom. We went to the Bagram air base in Afghanistan. The night before, we went to Kyrgyzstan and saw the pilots and those involved in the air operation. It was with great pride that I was able to be there and see the men and women who formed part of that operation. Under the same chairmanship role, I was able to go to Iraq in 2005 and go on patrol with our troops out of Al Muthana province and then on into Baghdad. It is worth recording that whilst we were in Iraq the referendum that had been conducted saw the people of Iraq determine their own constitution which requires that the parliament in Baghdad must include 25 per cent women members. That is a far cry from the situation that existed under Saddam Hussein. I put that on the record because I have been to see where our troops have operated. Not only have I seen the environment; I spent a night in the desert with them and I went on patrol with them, and I have seen the terrain where they operate.
And they survived!
I know the former defence minister would have done that too. It is important as members of this parliament who commit our troops to operations such as this in Afghanistan that we see where they operate. I know how much the troops appreciate a parliamentary delegation seeing them and their operations. They operate so professionally and with great pride, and they do the job that the government have asked of them.
Let us remind ourselves of that horrific day for the world on September 11 2001 when terrorists attacked the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, and of those fearless passengers on flight 93 who prevented the fourth plane from crashing into the US congress in Washington. Almost 3,000 innocent people died on that one day. A year later, in 2002, our country lost 88 Australians in the terrorist attacks in Kuta, Bali—202 people in total were killed from three bombs on that day. Five years ago, 52 people from all walks of life were killed and around 700 people were injured when four suicide bombers linked to al-Qaeda detonated bombs on London’s underground and on a double-decker bus in London.
All three attacks have been linked to extremist Islamic groups, particularly al-Qaeda and Jamaat-i-Islami. My memories of that horrible day in September 2001 are very vivid because the defence minister at the time, Peter Reith, was overseas and, as defence personnel minister and veterans’ affairs minister, I was acting defence minister that day—it was that evening that the news came through. It was an event that shocked the world and which would unite like-minded countries in ensuring that something like this would never happen again, and that those responsible would be brought to justice.
The operation in Afghanistan was established under the United Nations Security Council resolution 1386 in December 2001. It is a NATO-led security mission and it is reaffirmed by the United Nations each year. Let us also remember that the United Nations was established after World War II to ensure that atrocities carried out by Hitler would never occur again. I underline that to remind us all of the important role the United Nations plays in bringing like-minded countries together in a resolution to deal with atrocities and to make sure that the world can live more peacefully. Australia is part of a global coalition participating in an operation that is approved by the United Nations and NATO. Our involvement in Afghanistan is directly linked to our national security interests because we are a member of a global society. The Australians who died in Bali, the Australian who died in London and the Australians who died in New York on September 11 2001 prove to us that we are truly living in one global community.
Since Australia’s first involvement in an international conflict in 1885, Australia has lost 102,808 Australians. Their names are forever inscribed on the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial. Sadly, 21 names of young men who fought in Afghanistan have been added to that roll. They made the ultimate sacrifice. Our parliament and the Australian people should never forget what has been lost to make our country the strong democracy that it is today and we should never forget the people we have lost in our quest to help other nations achieve what we in Australia take for granted. Our thoughts on this day in this parliament are with the families particularly of those 21 brave Australian soldiers, as we discuss the war in Afghanistan. It is important that we remember them. Let us also remember the 152 men who have been seriously wounded. It is our responsibility to ensure that the government provides the necessary support that they need for their complete recovery from their wounds.
These men did not die in vain and we should take the opportunity to remind the Australian people about the success and the progress that has been made. So often the media concentrate on the tragedies—and it is important to report the mistakes and the failures of war—and recently we have learnt that three Australian troops have been charged with manslaughter, dangerous conduct, failure to comply with a lawful general order and prejudicial conduct after a night-time incident in which six Afghani civilians were unfortunately killed. I have received a number of calls from my constituents concerned about this incident and I have explained to them that the troops were in a very intense battle with the Taliban. The Afghanistan conflict is being fought in a very harsh environment where it is not readily apparent who the enemy is and where the insurgents do not fight under our very detailed rules of engagement. They place very little value on human life and often use innocent civilians as human shields. The opposition respects the decision of the independent Director of Military Prosecutions to charge the three soldiers and to let them have their day in court. But there have been concerns raised with me by my constituents that this is unprecedented and perhaps could have serious ramifications for our troops in the battles ahead.
We must also remember the good that is being done in Afghanistan. Progress is being made. Our troops have been involved in a number of infrastructure projects which have helped to improve the health and education of those in Tarin Kowt. We have helped build a waste management facility for the community. We have also helped to redevelop the Tarin Kowt boys primary school, which now has a new 35-classroom building. The boys high school has received an upgrade with new classrooms, and we have been involved in the construction of a girls school. A health centre has been developed which includes separate male and female clinics. Thirty shops have been constructed in the Sorkh Morghab bazaar development. We have helped build the Kowtwal Crossing, which is an all-weather crossing over the Tiri Rud River. And we have trained 1,200 Afghani males through our trades training school. That is significant progress in making sure there are employment opportunities and that young girls, in particular, are now able to go to school and, over time, participate in their communities as we see women participate in our own communities and in so many other Western democracies.
We should not withdraw our troops from Afghanistan until the job is done. That is the Australian way. I am reminded also of our latest rotation into East Timor. We will not withdraw from East Timor until the job is done, we did not withdraw from Bougainville until the job was done, and we should not withdraw from Afghanistan until this job is done. We are operating under a UN mandate in partnership with 47 other nations. The ANZUS treaty, which we signed in 1951, after World War II, has been called into play.
The mission is achievable and we will achieve the objectives. The next two to four years will see military transition to the Afghan 4th Brigade and a growth in the civilian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team. The operation in Afghanistan is working and certainly worthwhile. We must stay the course. That is why I welcome the debate and welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister. In her address she said that she will make a statement in this parliament each year that our involvement in Afghanistan continues, and that will certainly allow members of parliament and the people in the constituencies we represent to have their say and to continue to monitor the progress and success that we all hope and pray for in Afghanistan. Importantly, it will demonstrate to the Australian people that the parliament supports not only the operation in Afghanistan but also the troops and their families who wait back here at home for their safe return.
I welcome the opportunity to debate Australia’s part in the international community’s efforts to stabilise Afghanistan. It is an initiative which, when I was Minister for Defence, seemed unnecessary. Back then, regular ministerial statements and shadow ministerial responses seemed to suffice. But two things have changed since then. First, 19 months on and 11 more deaths on, the Australian community is more and more sceptical about our prospects of success and increasingly doubtful about the merit in us being there at all.
Second, cracks have been appearing in the bipartisan support for the campaign. This latter development would be disappointing in any circumstance, but it is particularly disappointing given it appears, to me, to have been more about domestic politics than about the national interest or indeed about the interests of our troops in theatre—and this from a political party which, when in government, took its eye off the ball to pursue a non-UN-sanctioned foray into Iraq and was sending our troops into harm’s way in Afghanistan without insisting on being part of the strategic planning processes. I remember very well preparing to travel to Vilnius, Lithuania, to be the first Australian defence minister to speak at a NATO conference on Afghanistan. ‘Please make sure I have the NATO planning documents among my travel papers,’ I said to a senior official. The astonishing response was: ‘Sorry, Minister. As a non-NATO partner we don’t have access to them.’ I am delighted to report that that quickly changed.
I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has taken the opportunity of this debate to clarify the opposition’s position and to reaffirm their support for the mission in Afghanistan. My own contribution to the debate will be one which reaffirms my own belief in the mission and the manner in which we are pursuing our objectives. Let me provide three important reasons. First, when the twin towers came down on September 11 2001, the terms of ANZUS, our most important alliance, were invoked. It is easy for people to dismiss our participation in Afghanistan as a ‘suck to the US’. Let me send a very important message to all and sundry: our relationship with the US matters; it matters a great deal. American expectations that we might come to their aid should be no less than our own expectations if we were to find ourselves in trouble. And any assistance they might provide to us in the future could be in response to an existential threat. The assistance we provide them in Afghanistan helps them to establish moral authority. The assistance they may provide us in the future may be far more important. In any case, the United States is unequivocally a force for good in the community of nations, and despite Uncle Sam’s great wealth, power and dominance he should not be expected to carry the weight of global peace on his shoulders alone.
Second, Afghanistan matters to Australia’s security. Just ask the family and friends of those who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists in Bali and Jakarta or indeed those who survived but live with physical disability or emotional scarring. We cannot and should not sit back and allow Afghanistan to once again descend into a breeding ground and safe haven for extremists with such a dedication to their cause that they are willing to murder innocent men, women and children.
Third, even if you are of the view that the intervention in Afghanistan was unjustified, you must accept that any precipitous withdrawal would lead to a humanitarian disaster on a massive scale as the Taliban reimposes its murderous system of justice and sets upon a course to punish all those who sided with those trying to establish new democratic, economic and social models and, of course, a lasting peace. Our commitment to this cause has been expensive in economic terms but more importantly, in human terms. Every life lost is one too many and to have lost 21 is devastating, but the brutal reality is that people die in armed conflict.
The second brutal reality is that in relative terms our losses in Afghanistan have been modest, thankfully—modest when compared to comparable countries such as Canada and modest in historical terms, when compared with other conflicts. I am often asked whether I really believe we ‘can win’ in Afghanistan. I believe we can. But it is really important to understand what ‘winning’ means. ISAF will have won in Afghanistan when the majority of Afghans come to the conclusion that the political, economic and social model we are offering is better than any being offered by the insurgents. We do not expect to offer a model democracy but we do expect to offer something much better than what is being offered by the Taliban.
Arriving at that point requires not just an effective military campaign but an effective nation-building campaign and a resolution to the complex political issues within both Afghanistan and the region, particularly in Pakistan and along the Durand Line where the Pashtun people have been divided by an international boundary imposed upon them long ago. In this civil-military-political campaign, each piece of the matrix is as important as the next. We will not kill and capture our way to success in Afghanistan. We will not win without an economy, a legal system and something to enforce it, and a public service and a government largely free of corruption. And we will not win if too many people in Pakistan are willing us to lose.
That Australia has but a relatively minor role to play in the outcome in Afghanistan is yet another reality. Oruzgan province is not that important in the big strategic picture. The fate of ISAF’s military campaign will be determined in Helmand province, Kandahar province and in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan.
The civil and political campaigns will be won or lost in Kabul, Islamabad and Washington. Beijing and Moscow also have roles to play on the political front but, as yet, seem unwilling to play with any great enthusiasm. None of these points are intended to undervalue the excellent work being done by the ADF and its partners in Oruzgan. Every contribution is important and our people are doing wonderful work there at great risk to themselves, but we must be open and transparent with the Australian people.
Oruzgan is important because it is often a northern safe haven for insurgents seeking respite from the main game in Helmand and Kandahar provinces. It is also an important transit route from the east for the insurgents. But it is a relatively small piece of a very complex and large strategic jigsaw puzzle. Our role there now is to train the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army to a point where it can take care of security in the province. I was minister when the National Security Committee redefined our mission. In doing so we effectively put in place an exit strategy. It was a difficult decision for me as minister because I knew it would increase the risk to ADF personnel, particularly our infantry and engineers. And sadly it has come at a cost, but it was the right decision and one I firmly believe was welcomed by and remains welcomed by the ADF members it affected.
We are undoubtedly a long way from achieving the aim of bringing the 4th Brigade to the standard required of them. That standard will not be determined by us; it we will be determined by NATO. The challenge is to build a force from soldiers with only the most rudimentary infantry and artillery skills. At the moment they enjoy the support of Australia’s special forces, our infantry fighting alongside them, our UAVs and our intel, and ISAF’s artillery guns, attack helicopters and fast jets. When Australia and its partners in Oruzgan leave, the ANA will be expected to provide security without our special forces clearing and disrupting, without our infantry mentors, without ISAF’s artillery and without close air support. That is a very big task. Indeed, they will never be in a position to do so in the absence of ISAF’s success in the broader military, nation-building and political strategy.
Anyone who thinks they will be able to handle alone an aggressive, determined and well-armed insurgency at some point in the future is not thinking at all. However, will they be capable of handling rogue elements and tribal leaders acting alone in a more stable Afghanistan? The answer is yes, but they will never be in a position to win a protracted campaign against an enemy fighting in an environment lacking a political settlement. So political reconciliation is critical. Therefore political negotiation is necessary. There is of course a difference between negotiating with moderates and doing deals with hardliners—that is an important point. Of course negotiation is most likely to meet with success if we are negotiating from a position of strength, and that in turn takes us back to the importance of the military campaign, the nation-building campaign, and the roles of Kabul, Islamabad and Pakistan’s ISI.
In the meantime it is incumbent upon Australia to do its bit. It is morally right to play a role rather than to simply allow the US to carry the burden alone. Just as important, our participation helps to provide moral legitimacy to the ISAF campaign. Along with the participation of other nation states, it sends a message that the Afghanistan project is one being undertaken by the community of nations, not just one or two nation states which may be perceived to have other agendas.
I would like to say something about our troops and the Afghan people. Our troops are the finest in the world and all Australians should be proud of them and grateful for what they do. They are volunteers, all of them, and they put their lives on the line for us without complaint or question. The majority of Afghan people want peace. They are sick and tired of war. I vividly remember their defence minister telling me so, and on all the evidence I have seen I am sure that is true. Our people in Afghanistan are helping them win the peace. We have also built them schools, hospitals, dams, roads and bridges. We have also made it possible for girls to obtain a school education. Education, of course, is the ultimate tool of empowerment.
Finally, one of the things that makes the debate about Afghanistan difficult is that members of the National Security Committee cannot share with the Australian people every detail of the campaign. Sometimes secrecy is critical both to our success and to the safety of our troops in theatre, our police, our aid workers, our advisers and, of course, our diplomats.
I appeal to the Australian electorate to have faith in the decisions of their government on these issues—a government which would never, ever send or leave our troops in harm’s way without good reason and a government which would never let them down by failing to give them everything they need in theatre, everything they need to make their task as safe as it is possible.
Having said that, both the government and the ADF need to be as open, honest and transparent as is possible to secure the trust of the electorate. Defence, in particular, has a tendency to be unjustifiably secretive. That is why as minister I insisted on having journalists be allowed to embed with our troops, something that the ADF leadership resisted with some determination.
Indeed, the same people ran interference on my own determination to venture—to use the defence vernacular—‘outside the wire’, to visit our troops in the field, to see the schools and hospitals we had built, to witness these projects with my own eyes and to walk the streets of Tarin Kowt for a friendly chat with the locals. There I saw the gratitude in their eyes. I saw people appreciative of what we Australians are doing in Afghanistan. I saw people with the hope of peace in their eyes and people who believe, as we should believe, that peace is worth fighting for.
In this debate I have heard a number of contributors use the perceived, or alleged, corruption within the Karzai government as an excuse to do nothing. As I said earlier, we would be foolish to expect within 10 years or even 20 years to have a model democracy in Afghanistan. No government, even in the Western world, can possibly hope to be absolutely free of some form of corruption and we certainly should not expect that outcome in Kabul. Certainly, the model we are seeking to put in place and, in turn, the model we want the Afghan government and its security forces to protect in the future is far better than anything on offer from the Taliban or any other group. These are the reasons why it is so important that we should stay the course. As members of parliament, we should remain determined to ensure that those people who have given their lives in Afghanistan have not given their lives in vain.
Debate (on motion by Ms Ley) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 19 October, on the proposed address-in-reply to the speech of Her Excellency the Governor-General—
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, express our loyalty to the Sovereign, and thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to the Parliament—
on motion by Ms O’Neill:
That the Address be agreed to.
Order! Before I call the honourable member for Forde I remind the House that this is the honourable member’s first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.
It is with great honour that I stand before this House today as the member for Forde. Forde is an electorate that has changed significantly since the 2007 election result, as a result of the redistribution in Queensland in 2009. Forde is an electorate that is located halfway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and covers an area of approximately 419 square kilometres—from Shailor Park to the north, to the south in Upper Coomera and Wongawallen, Carbrook in the east to Boronia Heights in the west. The seat also covers two local council areas: Logan City Council—the heart of the great south-east—and the Gold Coast City Council.
It is a seat that was named after Michael Francis Forde, who served as Prime Minister for a total of eight days in July 1945. The seat was created in 1984 and has traditionally been held by a member of the government of the day. It is testament to the hard work of a great campaign team and many volunteers that I am the first member to hold this seat who is not sitting on the government benches.
I am the proud son of immigrants from the Netherlands. My parents, Bob and Cornelia, came to Australia in the mid-sixties and I was born in Brisbane in 1965. At an early age my family moved to Waterford and, together with my brothers Peter, Robert and Douglas and my sister Cathryn, we enjoyed a fun-filled childhood swimming and fishing in the Logan River and the Tygum Lagoon. We even created our own sports field at the back of our property, which was used by local kids to play soccer, cricket or any other sport we decided was relevant at the time.
I went to school at Waterford and Waterford West primary schools and at Kingston State High where I graduated in 1982. My wife, Judi, too grew up in the electorate, in Beenleigh and Carbrook. We bought our first home in Loganlea. Judi and I were married in Beenleigh in October 1987. We recently celebrated our 23rd wedding anniversary. We are blessed with two wonderful sons, Zac and Josh, who are here with us in the gallery today.
I have strong Christian ethics and values, and these guide my life. I am an active member of my local church, and I am on the board of our bible college, Dunamis International College of Ministries. I am regularly involved in our men’s mentoring and leadership programs. My wife Judi is also on the board of Daughters of Promise, a mentoring and leadership program for young women.
I am an avid sportsman, and I enjoy soccer, cricket and golf—none of which I have enough time to play at the moment. In both soccer and cricket, I have been involved with teams that have won premierships and I have received a number of individual awards along the way. I also represented Queensland at state schoolboy level in soccer. I now enjoy helping with the coaching of my sons’ soccer teams and watching them play. It is through playing team sports that I have learnt the value of playing in a team. It is possible within a team environment to display your talents and abilities, but important to direct those energies towards the success of the team; however, you can still achieve individual success through the success of the team.
My first job was pumping petrol, checking the oil and cleaning the windscreens of cars at the local Caltex service station, which is still there today. I also worked with my father during school holidays. He was a ceramic tiler and I discovered that it was not the job for me. Professionally, I have spent 27 years in the financial services sector. I worked for 15 years for one of our major banks and for the past 12 years Judi and I have been building our own financial services business. Having experience as a small business owner, husband and father during one of the greatest financial crises of recent times, I have a particular interest in encouraging small business to grow and profit, thereby creating local employment and family security.
In that vein, I wish for Forde to be a place where people can live locally, work locally, retire locally and have fun in their local community. Forde will be a safe, family focused community where children learn, play and grow in a secure environment. Forde is a rapidly growing area that is suffering from many of the issues that other members in this House have touched on. Issues such as infrastructure failing to keep pace with growth, loss of housing affordability, increasing costs of living and lack of services are just some of the major problems for my electorate.
There are infrastructure projects such as the M1 from Loganholme to Eight Mile Plains. The Howard government committed approximately $500 million per annum for 10 years to have this important infrastructure project completed. The current government has withdrawn this commitment and the previous Labor member stated shortly before polling day that the government had no intention of funding the project. He said they considered the Ml to be a freight route between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and of no economic benefit to Logan City or the electorate. This attitude underscores the government’s lack of understanding of the economic loss incurred by many in the electorate who have to sit in the daily traffic crawl to get to work or conduct business.
The next stage of the Mt Lindesay Highway, in the western part of the electorate, and duplication and upgrade of the interstate rail line to a passenger line to cater for the planned new cities of Flagstone and Yarrabilba to the south and the growth of the Park Ridge area are vital. Further upgrade to the Gold Coast to Brisbane rail line to cater for more trains for the ever-growing corridor between Beenleigh and the Gold Coast is also a key infrastructure upgrade.
But probably the biggest issue in the electorate is the cost of living. The current government’s spending, both in its first term and on an ongoing basis, continues to contribute to this issue. The constant borrowing by the current government is increasing inflationary pressures and putting upward pressure on interest rates, which is in turn hurting family budgets. Now we have a government that is willing to further increase people’s cost of living by introducing a carbon tax and may well destroy our food production capacity through its poor management of the Murray-Darling Basin.
This problem further exacerbates the unspoken issue of underemployment. This is a far greater issue than many acknowledge, as it does not show up in official statistics and yet is a direct result of the issues facing small to medium sized businesses, issues which were created by the government’s poor fiscal management. It is estimated by the ABS that 300,000 jobs have been lost from the small business sector in the first 2½ years of the Gillard-Rudd government. I know from talking to small businesses in my electorate that that is a huge issue. It is always interesting to note that the very people that Labor purports to assist—the poor, the disadvantaged and the workers—are actually the people it hurts most through its economic policies.
Small business is the core employer in my electorate and is finding it costly and difficult to access new capital to grow and expand, or just get through the present difficult trading conditions. This is in part reflected in the underemployment issue I noted earlier, as employers seek to retain staff but reduce working hours. This also results in a fall in national productivity—an issue which the government apparently wishes to improve. This is where the initial and subsequent stimulus packages were misdirected and show a lack of understanding by the government about the causes of recession in Australia.
Phil Ruthven from Access Economics noted in a presentation earlier this year that the primary driver of recessions in Australia is not a fall in consumer spending but a loss by business of access to capital for continued growth and development. The issue arises due to the fact that the government continues to borrow at a rate of $100 million per day, which means there is $100 million per day less in the capital markets available for business. This capital would be far better allocated and utilised by businesses, as they will seek to utilise that capital productively to employ staff, manufacture goods and generate profits.
The community of Forde is also rightly concerned about environmental issues and recognises that we need to better look after our environment, with many people now actively talking about practical measures. But they recognise the folly of an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax. They recognise that these are really just big new taxes that will not make one bit of difference to dealing with on-the-ground environmental issues such as the restoration of water quality in the Logan and Albert rivers, which both ultimately flow into RAMSAR listed Moreton Bay.
In 2009, the Department of Environment and Resource Management in Queensland issued a report which rated the lower reaches of both rivers with a grade of poor or fail for a number of areas including water quality. The current government during the election campaign made a commitment to provide funding for the commencement of restoring water quality, and I call on the government to honour that commitment. I will continue to hold the government to account for this promise to the people of Forde.
There are also issues with the protection of high quality remnant rainforest flora and fauna from proposed residential developments in Bahrs Scrub to a proposed quarry in Ormeau. Community organisations such as the Bahrs Scrub Alliance, Stop the Quarry Action Group and VETO are putting in significant resources to fight these and other projects that will adversely affect our community. The electorate also contains a number of significant, federally and internationally recognised wetland areas in Carbrook, Eagleby and Cornubia that connect to the Logan and Albert rivers. As part of our election campaign we announced a couple of Green Army projects for a few of those wetland areas.
In Forde we are blessed with a wide range of strong and active community and sporting groups such as Rotary, Lions, Soroptimist International and Quota, Loganholme Soccer Club, Park Ridge Pirates AFL Club, Beenleigh Logan Cutters Cricket Club and Coomera Hockey Club. We have strong and active chambers of commerce in Logan at Beenleigh Yatala, Coomera, Ormeau, Park Ridge and Browns Plains. These organisations and their members work tirelessly to promote local business and represent the interests of local business to all levels of government.
There are many people in Forde who choose to be involved in voluntary work and activities to give back to their community. This electorate is blessed with groups such as MAD, Mothers Against Drugs, established in 1981 and run by June Hintze, who recently received a Pride of Australia Medal for community spirit. MAD aims to help children and young people who are at risk because they are in an environment of drug and/or alcohol abuse. Nightlight Outreach was founded by John and Michaela Porter after their eyes were opened to the number of homeless and disadvantaged people in Brisbane and the surrounding areas. Ron and Debbie Hill from Lighthouse Calvary Care provide food parcels and low-cost but quality food for the community. Their work was recently the subject of a feature story ‘The $20 trolley’ on Today Tonight and they are now receiving requests to extend the range of their work. These are but a small sample of the wonderful community focused people we have in Forde.
There are many people who deserve thanks and recognition for assisting me to become the member for Forde. I would like to thank the constituents of Forde, who have placed their faith and confidence in me to represent them. I acknowledge that I have been elected to represent all of the constituents of Forde and my team and I will do so to the best of our ability. I am absolutely committed to the people, communities and businesses in my electorate.
Winning this seat was achieved by having a tremendous team behind me during the campaign. I would first like to acknowledge and thank my wife, Judi, for her tireless efforts during the campaign. Her assistance and encouragement are the main reasons for me being able to pursue my goal and for me being here today. Judi, you and I make an awesome team and I love you for that and for all the other blessings you bring to me in my life. I also acknowledge and thank our two sons, Zac and Josh, who have both shown tremendous maturity and forbearance with both Judi’s and my absences during the campaign. Thank you, boys, you are a blessing and you are my champion sons.
To my campaign team: I wish to thank John Broadhurst, my campaign manager, for the outstanding work he did. He was a great source of advice, and as a friend he encouraged me and kept me going for the nine months of the campaign. Also thank you to Helen, his wife, for allowing John to be part of the team. I want to express my thanks to Jeff and Cathy Charlesworth for their tireless hard work organising signs, volunteers, polling booth rosters and many other things. Jeff, just remember that this all started with a discussion that we had about four years ago in Perth at 11 o’clock on a Friday night—and, no, there wasn’t any alcohol involved. Jeff and Cathy, your wise words, counsel and friendship mean so much to Judi and me. Thank you to all the wonderful members of the Dunamis Christian Centre for their outstanding support with booth work, letterbox drops and many other things. I would like to especially thank my good friend Senior Pastor Shaun Hansen and his ministry team and leadership team for their encouragement, support and prayers throughout.
To my mother, Cornelia, I am so indebted to you. You believed in me and knew I could achieve my goal of being a member of parliament. Thank you to my brothers, Peter and Robert, who encouraged and supported me throughout the nine-month long campaign. May we continue to have many more of our family political discussions in the future. To my mother-in-law, Ailsa, who took five weeks out of her life to come and live with us during the campaign. Not only did she care for our sons and cook meals but she also came and worked in the campaign office. Thank you to everyone.
To my friends and mentors Shane Weaver, John Murray, Colin Street, John Jolly, Phil Colburn and Andrew Hamman, thank you for support and friendship. Thank you to Fraser Stephens, Sue Lipp and Deb Kirk for their invaluable advice, support and tireless efforts during the last months of the campaign.
Lastly, I also wish to thank my patron senator, Senator George Brandis, and Senator Russell Trood and Tony Abbott and the members of the team that visited the electorate during the campaign and gave us valuable advice and assistance. I thank also the members of the Forde FDC, LNP headquarters and the campaign team, in particular James McGrath, for their support throughout.
I feel passionately about Australia and our position in the world. I believe that we live in the best country in the world. As a nation we are blessed with many things: abundant natural wealth; sporting talent and opportunity; an attitude which looks for a solution to a problem rather than to simply whinge about the problem; and a spiritual heritage that we should not dismiss and in these uncertain times should look to for wisdom and guidance. It is the foundation upon which our nation was built, and no amount of progressive thinking can or should change that.
I believe that it is this foundation of Judeo-Christian principles upon which our nation was built that will also allow it to continue to grow and prosper, and I also believe we ignore those at our peril. I feel not only humble but also seriously committed to my obligations as a member of the House of Representatives. My energies will be directed into making Forde a better place to live, work, raise a family and retire. I will also work for the betterment of the country, for our children and for future generations of Australians to come.
Mr Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating you on your return to that important position in what will be an interesting and I hope productive time in this place. I return to parliament with the renewed privilege of representing the people of the Fremantle electorate. It is an enormous honour and also a heavy responsibility that comes with representative politics, for each of us elected to this place is charged with the task of making a difference for our own communities and for Australia as a whole. I said in my first speech that politics is about service, and that this service is both to the communities that we represent and to the set of ideals and values that draw us to this vocation. I have certainly reflected on that over the last three years and, as a federal member, I have done my best to come to grips with the difficulties involved in trying to give that service effectively and across as many areas as one would like. Not surprisingly the doing is inevitably harder and more complicated than the saying, and one of the most straightforward difficulties is choosing how to give priority to the literally hundreds of issues that arise in this work.
I reflected on the twin notions of service I have spoken about in the aftermath of the recent campaign, when some chose to make use of Edmund Burke’s formulation of the duty representatives owe to their electorates in order to argue for one kind of minority government over another. The statement relied upon spoke about the bond of trust that exists between constituents and their representative. Burke said:
Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.
But Edmund Burke knew there were limits to what might be called the purely delegate view of representative politics. He went on to say:
But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
The exclusive use of male pronouns aside, this is a well-expressed argument for the application of values and the primacy of disinterested judgment in preference to the potentially fickle influence of popular opinion or ad hoc representations. It is a statement in support of guiding principles as an essential part of the decision-making framework and against the purely delegate view. There is a fine balance, then, in politics and in life between the need to hear and sometimes accept views that are different from one’s own and the value of conviction that remains steadfast in the face of opposition or unpopularity. Listening to others and being prepared to put aside your view has a value, but so does the act of persuading others to take a new approach to an intractable problem or to changing circumstances. For all those reasons I will continue to take guidance from the idea of service to both the community I represent and to the set of values that underpin my capacity to make judgments on the issues I confront.
As someone who has been re-elected for the first time I have now experienced the benefit of the cycle in which representatives are judged and tested, and I can see the value of a cycle that allows one to reflect on the things that have been achieved and the things that remain to be done. Today I intend to talk about the matters large and small and local and national that I regard as areas of particular interest or focus, the matters and issues on which I will seek to make some meaningful contribution in this term.
The Fremantle electorate has as its natural focus the beautiful and vibrant port city of Fremantle. The significance of the city as a regional centre and its location in the north-west corner of the electorate can tend to obscure the fact that the eastern and south-eastern parts of the Fremantle electorate are experiencing the fastest growth and development. I have always been very much aware of this and I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions about the strengths, challenges and needs of this area of my electorate. It is a part of the Perth south metro region that is flourishing through its access to the coast at Coogee and Jervoise Bay and as a result of the extension of the rail line from Perth to Mandurah by the Gallop-Carpenter Labor government. That is, of course, in addition to the proactive work of the City of Cockburn, the South West Group and, most importantly of all, the energy, entrepreneurship and strong community spirit of individuals, families and businesses in the area.
The Perth metro area south of the river is served by the train line from Perth to Fremantle and by the newer inland Perth-Mandurah train line, which in my electorate runs through the suburbs of North Lake, South Lake, Jandakot, Atwell, Success and Aubin Grove. But, as I have mentioned, there is enormous scope for development in the central and coastal south metro corridors, and it is logical that this area be encouraged and supported by the provision of appropriate infrastructure. It is for that reason that I have worked particularly hard to argue for community facilities, such as the new fire and emergency services headquarters in Jandakot, near Cockburn central, to which the government has now committed $1.5 million.
I also hope the Western Australian government can soon adopt a transport plan for the south metro region that includes a strategic and forward-looking commitment to a second tier public transport network like light rail. Such a plan is necessary and it should be developed as a priority in order to complement the current and planned residential expansion along the Cockburn coast in particular. Unfortunately, the current state government’s principal transport planning initiative is to pursue the outdated and hugely damaging Roe Highway stage 8. This road will have an unnecessary and unacceptable impact on another of the critical north-south features of the Fremantle electorate—namely, the string of lakes and wetlands that form the spine of the Beeliar Regional Park. This is an internationally significant ecosystem. It is enormously significant to local Aboriginal people, represented by elder Patrick Hume, for its archaeological and mythological heritage sites. It is one of the great environmental and community assets in the metropolitan area south of the Swan River. I will continue to support an approach to transport planning in metropolitan Western Australia that looks beyond the tired and reflexive decision to keep building further huge expensive roads in a network that already provides more kilometres per capita than almost anywhere else in the world. There are better solutions for reducing road congestion and the impact of road freight, not least in properly supporting rail freight—an initiative which the current WA government has flagrantly abandoned.
I have noted before in this place that the Fremantle electorate is a leader in urban sustainability and there have been a number of achievements in the last year that bear this out. Western Australia is well placed to be a major participant in renewable energy development and I am keen to ensure that WA is seen not just in terms of its mining strength but also in terms of its potential for innovation and expansion when it comes to renewables like solar, solar thermal, wave, geothermal and wind power. It is hard sometimes not to feel that WA’s capacity in this area is overlooked, perhaps because of its obvious strength in traditional energy resources. I am resolved to advocate on behalf of renewable energy and other emission reduction or carbon abatement initiatives in my electorate and in my state.
In addition to my work in the Fremantle electorate and my work in this place as a representative of Fremantle and of Western Australia, there are several matters of national importance that I intend to pursue. In the area of health, I have already signalled my interest in seeing a small but important change to the Patents Act 1990 that will prevent the patenting of genetic material or sequences and therefore stop the private and commercial exploitation of what is our most fundamental common property and common wealth. I draw members’ attention to my notice of motion relating to gene patents that was debated on Monday night, 18 October, and I encourage interested parliamentarians and members of the public to consider the discussion and inform themselves on the issue.
It is also clear that Australia needs to quicken the pace and expand the scope of national health reform as a whole, in particular in the area of preventative health. That is a project that this government is well placed to advance, partly because the sound underlying structure of the national health system was built by Labor governments of the past and partly because this government has already made progress in the area of health reform. I commend the incredible work done by the Minister for Health and Ageing in this area to date, and I look forward to being part of a Labor government that continues to shape a sustainable and effective national health system. This includes being prepared to take hard decisions to ensure that health funding is applied as effectively as it can be—as in the case of our preparedness to direct government support on the basis of need to those who take out private health insurance.
The issue of care, both for the elderly and for people with disability, is of enormous significance. I look forward to the Productivity Commission’s examination of a national disability insurance scheme, for there can be few areas of policy that present such enormous potential to improve the quality of Australian life for the millions of people who live with disability or care for those who do. On that front, I welcome the creation of the special disability trust, which allows parents of children with disability to make provision for their care. This reform is one of those small but important improvements that occur through government without ever intruding into the wider public awareness. I am aware that further improvements to the operation of those trusts have been introduced in a bill today, and I look forward to their becoming law. I want to make special mention of Ray Walter and his wife and their son Glenn—an indefatigable Western Australian family who have campaigned on this issue for years. I am one of several WA parliamentarians to have had the benefit of Ray’s tireless advocacy on this issue, and I want to particularly acknowledge the passionate concern of the member for Pearce, who had a notice of motion on this subject on Monday.
When it comes to aged care, I am strongly in favour of considering new and further approaches to support elderly Australians and their families in circumstances where an elderly couple or an individual wants to continue to live independently but needs assistance to do so. There is scope to explore both existing and innovative means of providing care in the home, which I believe will have benefits for elderly Australians and their families, in addition to cost savings. There is also no doubt that we need to focus efforts and resources on residential aged-care capacity, service and consistency right now if we are to avoid a crisis in the near future. I support calls for further funding and attention to be given to this sector and I look forward to welcoming the new Minister for Mental Health and Ageing to Fremantle to meet with aged-care providers and workers. Of course, the quality of aged and disability care depends more than anything on the people who directly provide that care and on the proper staff-patient ratios that allow care workers to do what they do best—in appropriate working conditions. Due to the strength of the resources sector, WA has particular difficulties when it comes to retaining workers in the aged-care sector. I support a proportion of increased funding being ring-fenced for the improvement of wages to care workers.
Finally, on the health topic, can I say how welcome it was that the recent election drew public and media attention to the issue of mental health. This is a matter of great concern in my electorate, and while Fremantle has been fortunate to benefit from one of the new headspace centres I also look forward to the implementation of the government’s further initiatives in the area of suicide prevention.
In the area of governance and ethics, I intend to further pursue a number of issues. I believe that our system of government should operate to ensure that the decision to commit Australian troops overseas to war is subject to full parliamentary consideration, debate, and approval—rather than being a matter for the executive alone. This week we are debating our commitment in Afghanistan, and so it is timely that we extrapolate from those circumstances to consider the process by which we come to make these commitments in the first place. It is inevitable that we will have to make similar decisions in the future and I believe there are compelling reasons—most vividly illustrated by the Howard government’s decision to go to war in Iraq—to provide greater scrutiny of the decision to commit troops to war through a process which requires parliamentary consideration and consent.
I remain committed to the good sense and necessity of a human rights act and I reject wholeheartedly the idea that this question has been resolved or that a human rights act is some kind of high-flown, marginal reform. In fact, such an act not only would incorporate domestically Australia’s international commitments under human rights treaties but would enshrine the very Australian notion of a fair go within our legal system because it would empower ordinary Australians against the excesses of the executive. You have only to reflect on the tragic WA case of Mr Ward, who died in the back of a prison van in January 2008, whose agonising death was described by the coroner as wholly unnecessary and avoidable. No person or body—not the drivers of the prison van; not the company, G4S, running the prisoner transport services on behalf of the government; not the police or the justice of the peace; not the Department of Corrective Services or the Department of the Attorney General—has been held accountable, and nor are they likely to be. The treatment of Aboriginal people in WA’s justice system was unacceptable in 1901, when the Labor member for Coolgardie, Hugh Mahon, moved a motion calling for a royal commission into the matter, and it is unacceptable in modern Australia. The deplorable police tasering incidents that have recently come to light only add weight to this.
In the area of international engagement, I will renew my efforts to be part of the worldwide push to end the use of the death penalty. The death penalty is anathema to civilised human society. As I have said before in this place on more than one occasion, it is wrong, dangerous and immoral for the state to put a citizen to death. It demeans us all and it should be stopped.
I join with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in believing that Australia has a role to play in helping to keep the Millennium Development Goals on track. Progress has been made in some areas, but the 2015 targets are likely to be missed, particularly those relating to maternal and child health, unless the international community increases its efforts in this regard. In my view, we must never stop striving to end the obscenity of two billion of our fellow human beings living and dying in extreme poverty. I can confidently say that the electorate I represent wants Australia to play a meaningful role when it comes to global efforts to reduce poverty, disadvantage and suffering.
When we look to characterise the nature of Australia’s outlook on the world, it is hard not to be struck by our record of deep generosity and compassion in relation to events like the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the floods in Bangladesh and the earthquake in Haiti. That outward-looking concern for our fellow human beings, and especially for those who live in less secure or well-off circumstances than we do, is an extension of our openness and sense of fairness. It is fitting, therefore, that I finish this speech by making mention of a fundraising concert I attended in Fremantle on Saturday. This event, titled simply ‘Concert for Pakistan’, was organised by a group of Fremantle people, from the local Oxfam group and including other community members, who recognised that the flood disaster in Pakistan had not registered as strongly on the public consciousness as the scale of the catastrophe demands. I suspect that one of the contributing reasons for its lack of profile was the federal election and its aftermath, which dominated the media and public focus at the time.
In any case, the Concert for Pakistan involved a large number of people from across the greater Fremantle community who gave their time and resources to raise money for the ongoing effort to deal with the terrible impact of the floods in that country. I was very happy to be there to introduce a couple of the bands who donated their performances on Saturday, and it always lifts the heart to be in a group of people—men, women, and children—who come together to contribute their time, money and good wishes for men, women and children who are just like them but who, by fate and circumstance, are suffering terrible privation.
I would particularly like to recognise the work of Jon Strachan, who until recently was a councillor in the City of Fremantle. He continues his longstanding efforts as an environmental and social campaigner and he certainly lives by the motto ‘Think global, act local’, or to borrow a mantra from Mahatma Gandhi ‘Be the change that you wish to see in the world’.
That is the principle on which I am happy to conclude my speech at the commencement of the 43rd Parliament. It is a principle that applies to some of the greatest challenges we face in Australia, and as a global community. It applies to climate change, it applies to the finite and dwindling supply of hydrocarbons that dominate our current energy-use profile, it applies to the issue of global poverty and the insecurity and conflict that flows from desperation; and it flows from the disparity between those who have and those who have not.
In my address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s delivery of the agenda for this parliament I want to highlight one of the key issues. It is an extraordinary admission that this government occupies the benches and Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, occupies the Lodge on the basis of their being able to convince a number of people that they would offer regional Australia the very best chances of a more sustainable future. So today I hold up some recent headlines that relate to an extraordinarily important plan that has just been delivered for the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a plan that has been three years in gestation and which cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a plan that we have to presume the Prime Minister knew about, because she put it off—she did not want anyone to see it immediately before the election. Just a few short days ago this plan was dropped onto the basin communities. The headings include: ‘The scary plan’, ‘Plan will leave communities fighting for survival’, ‘Basin plan will devastate towns’, ‘War over water inevitable’ and ‘Plan anger grows’. Protesters in a photo on the front page of the Weekly Times held signs reading ‘8000 jobs down the drain’, ‘Irrigation feeds a nation’, ‘Frogs don’t feed us’ and ‘City 4 sale BYO H2O’, and so it goes on.
As we speak, a town meeting is taking place in Narrabri, a very important part of the Murray-Darling Basin. We know that at the next meetings, to make up the 23 that are being offered in the basin, the anger, frustration and disappointment will be palpable. When the coalition was in government we understood very much that there had been governance failure over the basin for decades. Four or five jurisdictions are all carving up and taking responsibility for water law and managing different water law entitlements in what is the biggest and driest basin in the world. The coalition set about putting things to rights by introducing the National Water Initiative, which was agreed by COAG in 2004. In 2007, we introduced legislation which had embedded in it the need to produce a plan that would make sure there was both a sustainable environmental future for the basin and a sustainable future for the food and fibre producers, who have also played a part and continue to play a part in ensuring that the ecosystems that they, of course, depend on are sustainable into the future.
What we have got instead is a travesty and a sham. I am ashamed to think that the plan that Australian government officials produced is so poor and has produced such anxiety in our communities. The first public meeting was held in the city of Shepparton—in fact, there were two meetings: one was held in the morning and one was held in the afternoon—just one working day after this plan was released, and the people who went to those meetings, over 1,000 of them, went in a dignified and carefully respecting way. They wanted to hear every word that was going to be explained to them about the content of this plan because it was about their future.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Murray will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I rise today to celebrate the success of a great South Australian company, Adelaide Mushrooms, which last week opened its brand-new world-leading facility at Monarto, which is just on the other side of my electoral border in the electorate of Barker but which employs many constituents of mine in the electorate of Mayo. It is operated and run by the Schirripa family—Doug, Roy, Frank and Brian in particular—who have been in this business since 1984. They have built a $50 million world-leading facility at Monarto—it is Australia’s biggest supplier of mushrooms—leading to significant employment in the district. It also leads the way in environmentally friendly practices, as well as in water friendly practices, which of course is such a great challenge in our part of the world.
They are a proudly South Australian company and it is right that they be recognised inside this place and out. They have been named in the top 100 companies in South Australia and also awarded distinguished achievement awards in the category of ‘spirit of South Australia’. They are the largest supplier of mushrooms throughout the country and we salute businesses like Adelaide Mushrooms and their operators, the Schirripa family, for their entrepreneurial spirit and the effort that they go to. (Time expired)
Last Saturday I attended the 10th anniversary fete and celebrations of the King’s Kids Playgroup held at the Golden Grove Baptist Church. The playgroup was established by young parents of King’s Baptist Grammar School community at Golden Grove as a means of providing support to one another during the very demanding stage of life, in the early years of marriage, when the pressures of life for parents of young children can be overwhelming. Over the past 10 years, hundreds of families have been part of the playgroup, and I have no doubt that many lasting friendships have been formed between the children and between families.
Reflecting on the difficulties faced by young families in Australia, members of the playgroup empathise with how much more difficult life for young mothers and young children might be in developing countries and have today become advocates for Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5, which focus on infant and maternal mortality. Simultaneously, the King’s Kids Playgroup has also been fundraising to assist mothers and children in developing countries. At present their fundraising is being directed through the SIMaid project ‘Caring for Kids’. That project is aimed at improving the survival rate of orphans and other vulnerable children under the age of five in Burkina Faso. A petition in the form of a birthday card was signed by all those present on the day, requesting the Australian government lift its international aid funding. I was asked to pass the card on to Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd and I will do that. I congratulate the King’s Kids Playgroup on their 10th birthday and I commend the members of the playgroup for their care and compassion not only for one another but for young families across the world.
I have to ask the Labor government why it has recently taken measures that will seriously impact on the quality of health provided for my constituents in the electorate of Forrest. People in the medical sector and all of my constituents who are seeking medical assistance are extremely angry and concerned at Labor’s decision to withdraw the Greater Bunbury region from the District of Workforce Shortage register. We have serious and severe shortages of GPs in the south-west. Currently 28 GPs are being sought for the Greater Bunbury region. The ratio of 1,684 patients per GP is well above the national average of 1:1,100 patients per GP. The removal of the District of Workforce Shortage classification, and the fact that the average age of general practitioners serving in the area is the mid- to late-50s, means that the health services in the south-west of WA are under very serious pressure.
Doctor shortages and a lack of local health services are always of significance, and they are in my electorate. A local newspaper, the Bunbury Mail, recently carried the headline, ‘Doctor dilemma: local GPs threaten to quit under shortage strain.’ Given this, I am urging the Minister for Health and Ageing to answer some questions. I will be talking to her this afternoon on behalf of my constituents and I will be seriously requesting a return to the District of Workforce Shortage register for the Greater Bunbury region.
I wish today to offer my very hearty congratulations to two young people in Rockhampton, Daniel Johnston and Danielle Dougan, who have been awarded the Australian Vocational Student Prize. This is a prize which is awarded to up to 500 outstanding students each year and it recognises exceptional achievements in vocational education and training. Danielle has been employed at the Airport Hangar Cafe at the Rockhampton Airport for three years now, and during that time has completed a Certificate III in hospitality. Danielle will continue her employment at the Airport Hangar Cafe because her employers have been extremely impressed with her loyalty, hard work and reliability. Congratulations to Danielle. She is a very high-achieving young woman across a range of different areas. She is a real leader in our local Indigenous community, as well as being an exceptional softball player.
The other young person is Daniel Johnston, who has completed a Certificate III in automotive mechanical technology during the course of his school studies. He is now working full-time as an apprentice at Highway Auto Electrics in Rockhampton. He actually completed 18 competencies of his apprenticeship before even starting year 12, so his employer has been very keen to snap him up and continue him in his work at that business—(Time expired)
I rise to acknowledge three great junior sportspeople in the electorate of Fadden who, I am announcing today, will be receiving a $500 grant as part of the local sporting championship grants for round 3 for the 2009-10 financial year. First there is Isaac Robb, who participated in the Telstra swimming championship and has shown himself to be a very able and very competent swimmer, working hard and participating at a significant level. Second is Taylor Hayes, an under-18 women’s national champion, and third, Max Muggeridge, who is also an age champion in his particular sport. These three young Australians on the Gold Coast have been working extremely hard in competition and in actively pursuing their sporting interests, and they are worthy recipients of the $500 grant from the local sporting championship grants process.
Last Sunday I was fortunate to attend the 23rd anniversary celebrations for Sydney Australian-Filipino Seniors Inc., better known as SAFSI. For 23 years SAFSI has served our community, becoming the largest Filipino-Australian seniors group in New South Wales and one of the largest in Australia. Over this period, SAFSI has been unwavering in its commitment to promoting the wellbeing of its members and their families by providing educational, recreational, social and cultural services.
As a resident of the Blacktown local government area, which has the largest per capita population of Filipino residents in all of Australia, I have seen firsthand the great work that SAFSI does in our community. The continued and growing success of the organisation is a testament to the commitment displayed by all SAFSI members during this 23-year period. I wish to place on record my sincere congratulations to SAFSI and its leadership, particularly its hardworking president, Mr Jules Sanchez. Well done, SAFSI.
I rise to commend the work being done in the Kempsey area in my electorate by the Dunghutti Aboriginal Leadership Management Alliance. The area has a relatively large Indigenous population and, like most of the North Coast, has an unemployment rate above the national average. The alliance has been formed by community leaders, members of youth groups, chief executive officers and chairpersons of Aboriginal organisations throughout the Macleay Valley. This is the first time that the major Aboriginal organisations in Kempsey have come together to present a coordinated front to deal with the longstanding issues affecting their community. Its aim is to reduce the economic and social disadvantage experienced by many in the Indigenous community—in other words, to play its role in Closing the Gap.
A comprehensive report has been prepared identifying the current best practice in Indigenous programs and areas of greatest need. On the basis of this report, DALMA will act as a conduit between the Indigenous community and all levels of government on Closing the Gap issues and ensure that programs and services are comprehensive, accessible, flexible and community centred. I particularly welcome the group’s belief that Closing the Gap will only succeed if Aboriginal peoples develop and drive the solutions, the group’s desire for unity in the whole Kempsey community and its recognition of the importance of the natural environment and the need for accountability with regard to taxpayers’ money. I wish DALMA all the best in its very important work.
I rise to thank and congratulate the students and staff of Plenty Valley Christian College for their outstanding work on the Make Poverty History campaign. After the students learned how much better placed we are in the world compared to others and about the hardship and the challenges that people face in other countries, they decided to stand up and take action to raise awareness and help others less fortunate than us.
A group of year 10 students, led by Jessica Exton and Asherlina Edwards, organised for the college to be involved in the worldwide stand up for poverty day. The group obtained 582 signatures on fifth birthday cards from students and staff at the college to raise awareness in our community and to bring to the Australian parliament’s attention our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, particularly goals 3 and 4, to improve child and maternal health. This great group of students acknowledge how lucky we are in comparison to other countries and were troubled by the fact that young people around the world would die needlessly. The students wanted to help make a difference. Primary students made a donation to come out of uniform for the day to also help raise funds, and other groups in year 10 are running fundraising activities to help raise $5,000 to supply an Indian community with an urban community kit to supply fresh water and other community development strategies to improve the lives of some of the world’s poor.
I was delighted to take the bag of fifth birthday cards to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, on their behalf, and I know that federal Labor are committed to our Millennium Development Goals and assisting nations that are not as lucky as we are. Once again, I thank the students and the staff of the college for their Christian values and their dedication and commitment to those who are less fortunate than us. I am very proud of their work and their ability to look out and respond to the needs of others. Thank you, Plenty Valley Christian College.
I rise today to recognise in this place the very special efforts of a very special woman in my electorate of Leichhardt, Mrs Rose Richards, affectionately known as Auntie Rosie. Auntie Rosie has dedicated her life to helping Indigenous pregnant women from remote communities and their children get the best care and the support that they need. Recently I attended the opening of a new facility which has eventuated as a direct result of the hard work of this great woman. Mookai Rosie Bi-Bayan, named in her honour, would not have happened without Auntie Rosie and her tireless efforts.
During the late seventies, working as an Aboriginal welfare officer in the Cairns Base Hospital, she was concerned about the welfare of children born in Cairns to Aboriginal women from remote communities who were being discharged and returned to their communities prematurely, only to return with serious health complications because of the lack of appropriate services in their communities. They needed somewhere to stay in Cairns that was safe and culturally appropriate until they were healthy and to ensure that health matters were addressed before going home.
So what did Auntie Rosie do about the problem? She did not sit on her hands and do nothing. She opened up her home and welcomed these women and children in, caring for them in her own time, unpaid, with a small band of volunteers. Her home became known as Auntie Rosie’s Place. It went from a site in McLeod Street in Cairns to Trinity Park, where it became known as Rosie’s Farm, on to Balaclava Road in Earlville, where 12 mums and children were housed, to a purpose built facility at Edmonton housing 36 mums and bubs. This woman single-handedly changed the face of maternal care for Indigenous women in our community. Auntie Rosie cared enough to make a difference and the community will be forever thankful to her. (Time expired)
I want to share with the House an email I have received from one of my small schools, Hernani Public School. It is about the Active After-school Communities program. It reads:
Dear Ms Saffin,
I have just been advised that the Federal Government has announced that the AASC has been extended for another 12 months. This is wonderful news for our small rural community which has been participating in this worthwhile program since its inception.
Not only does this program provide our school community with opportunities to interact positively with students of all ages, it encourages healthy living practices and provides opportunities for cooperative play, peer leadership and skill building in all areas of physical education.
This program also encourages and provides funding for community coaches to travel to rural and remote schools like ours to impart their knowledge and skills and interact with students in a small school environment.
On behalf of the whole Hernani school community, I would like to sincerely thank the Gillard Government for the $43.5 million to extend the AASC program for another year and we look forward to it continuing into the future.
With kind regards,
Liz
Liz Arnold
Principal
Hernani Public School
This wonderful program of after-school activities in communities is of benefit particularly in rural and regional areas. It certainly benefits some of the schools in my area. There are 96 schools, and—(Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
I move:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 17 October 2010, of The Honourable Kenneth Shaw Wriedt, former Senator for Tasmania and Minister for Primary Industry, Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Minerals and Energy, and place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Ken Wriedt was a member of the greatest generation, the generation that was born into hardship, served the cause of freedom in war and came home to build a better peace. Ken Wriedt was born in Melbourne’s Fitzroy on 11 July 1927, sharing a birthday with a gangly 11-year-old then growing up in Canberra named Gough Whitlam, who came to figure so greatly in Ken’s life in the decades to come. Ken grew up in the tough years of the Depression and saw wartime service as a sailor in the merchant marine, sparking a lifelong love of the ocean.
The searing experiences of the Depression and the poverty seen on his foreign travels guided Ken towards the Labor cause. He joined the party in 1959, the same year he married Helga, who shared his life’s journey for five decades. After three attempts at preselection he was elected to the Senate as part of the new Whitlam team in 1967 and five years later became Minister for Primary Industry. Ken was an outstanding minister regarded by John Button as ‘a most distinguished member of the Whitlam government’. He was a reformist who understood the competitive realities that Australia’s agriculture sector and industry more generally had to face. In fact, there is a great Alan Moir cartoon from 1974 showing Ken cresting a huge wave with his sailor’s hat all askew desperately fighting against the tide, trying to drag Australia from reliance on the sheep’s back towards a stronger future based on mining. I am sure that the current minerals boom must have given Ken the satisfaction of knowing that his thinking had been far in front of its time.
Ken’s Commonwealth ministerial tenure ended on 11 November 1975, as did so many other great careers. But Ken felt he had more to offer and reinvented himself in state politics, winning a Tasmania House of Assembly seat in 1982 and going on to become Leader of the Opposition and a minister in the Field Labor government, where he came to have a high regard for the Greens and their emerging leader, Bob Brown, of whom he predicted great things.
Through 83 years Ken had many loves: the ocean and the magnificent Tasmanian landscape, classical music and poetry, and a fierce appreciation of the ABC’s role as a force for culture and learning. He was an internationalist who decried the enormity of injustice and sought fairness for the people of East Timor. He cultivated the virtues of calmness and tranquillity based on a lifelong interest in Buddhism and the practice of meditation.
Foremost in his affections, of course, were his wife, Helga, his daughters, Paula and Sonia, and his four grandchildren, who this week mourned the end of Ken’s long and purposeful life just a month after their beloved Helga also passed away.
Ken will be long remembered in this place and beyond as one of the true gentlemen of Australian politics, an excellent minister and a fine human being praised on all sides of politics for his decency and his integrity. With his family we say goodbye to a great servant of his party, the parliament and our nation. Our country is a better place because Ken devoted his life to public service.
I rise briefly to support the remarks of the Prime Minister in support of the condolence motion for the late Ken Wriedt, a former minister in the Whitlam government and a former Leader of the Government in the Senate. He was obviously a highly talented man and a highly talented politician who became a minister after just four years in the parliament and became the leader of his party in the Senate after just seven years in the parliament. He was by all accounts an extremely effective Minister for Agriculture who was widely well regarded by the agricultural sector, notwithstanding his government’s removal of the superphosphate bounty and of the reserve price for wool, two initiatives which caused great consternation at the time, and notwithstanding his rueful comment on appointment that in fact he did not know a merino from a Corriedale.
It is my understanding that, along with John Wheeldon, he would have preferred the Whitlam government to have gone to a double-dissolution election when supply was blocked, as members would recollect, in this parliament back in 1975. I understand that it was in fact Ken Wriedt as government leader in the Senate who ultimately secured supply for the then Fraser caretaker government because he had not been warned by the recently dismissed Prime Minister of the events at Yarralumla. So I suppose we on this side can rejoice in his role securing supply for the Fraser caretaker government.
He was, as I understand it, a man of great principle and high integrity. I am indebted to press gallery journalist Don Walford, who is in the gallery today, for the reminder that he was deeply disillusioned with his party, in part because of the then party leader’s desire to obtain campaign funding from the Iraqi Baathist Party in the aftermath of the 1975 election. Nevertheless, any unhappiness with his party could not have lasted, because when he left this parliament he served with distinction for many years as a Labor MP in the Tasmanian parliament and was in fact the leader of the Labor Party in the Tasmanian parliament for some years.
He was a fine man. He served his country, his state and his party with distinction. We honour his memory, we respect his work and we send our condolences to his family and friends.
For reasons of family association I would like to endorse and associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I ask all members to rise in their places as a mark of respect to the late Ken Wriedt.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day relating to the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister’s motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Honourable Kenneth Shaw Wriedt be referred to the Main Committee.
I understand that a number of members would like to contribute further to this debate.
Question agreed to.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the comment of Kevin Bracken, President of the Victorian Trades Hall Council and member of the Port Melbourne branch of the Labor Party that, in relation to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001:
I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
If the Prime Minister finds these comments as offensive as most right-thinking Australians, what action will the Prime Minister take to discipline Mr Bracken and send a message to others that such remarks are unacceptable?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member for Dickson!
I thank the member for what I understand to be his first question, and I congratulate him on his election to this place. He follows in distinguished shoes, after Petro Georgiou’s contribution to this House, about which we were talking just yesterday.
On his question, obviously, I do not agree with the remarks. Obviously, they are stupid and wrong. I think the member was in the House yesterday when I gave my Prime Minister’s statement on Afghanistan. I would refer him to that. That is my view, obviously. It is the view of the Labor Party. If the member wants to research our policy that goes through our national conferences and other places he will find it outlines our view about the conflict in Afghanistan and why Australia is there. As the member would probably be aware, the Labor Party is a large organisation. People join it as individuals. We do not dictate what people think, and neither does the Liberal Party, in my understanding—
I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked what action she would take to send a message. I ask you to bring her to that part of the question.
As has often been the case, what I am about to say will set me aside from the rest of the House. I simply say to the Manager of Opposition Business that, having learnt my lesson in the last parliament, I did not rule the question out of order because it would appear that in the last parliament there was a very broad interpretation of what interests the Prime Minister had in party political matters. Having said that, I think that what I have heard of the response is directly relevant to the question. Again, I refer to my remarks about the difference between a direct answer and direct relevance.
I was making the simple point that the Labor Party is a large organisation and one would expect that there would be individuals in a large organisation who have views that I view as wrong, and I view this view as wrong. However, on the matter of what the member is asking for, I would ask him to contemplate the standard he is setting here. If it is the intention of the Leader of the Opposition to expel every individual from the Liberal Party who makes a stupid statement I will start sending him a weekly list, and presumably Mal Washer is right on the top of it now.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the structural separation of Telstra a key step in delivering the National Broadband Network, and why is it important that Australian households and businesses get the benefits of this essential infrastructure?
I thank the member for Greenway for her question, which is about an important issue for the future of the country, for the prosperity of every Australian, for the future of health services and for the future of education services. I would suggest that nothing better marks the contrast between the political parties in this parliament than the contrast between her question and the one asked before it. Yes, we are determined to build a prosperous future for this country with world-class infrastructure. Today we are reintroducing into this parliament the legislation that enables the structural separation of Telstra so that we can build the National Broadband Network and give Australia the infrastructure of the future.
On the merits of this legislation, the House does not have to take reassurances from me. It can actually turn to the words of the member for Bradfield, Paul Fletcher, who wrote a book called Wired Brown Land? Telstra’s Battle for Broadband. He, of course, is now acting as the shadow shadow communications minister, as I understand it. It is a new convention in the opposition that they have shadow shadow everything. The member for Goldstein is the shadow shadow Treasurer.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question.
And of course the list goes on. The shadow shadow communications minister, the member for Bradfield, said in his book:
My fundamental argument is that we need to get the market structure right first; if we do that, the right technology will follow.
Then the member for Bradfield went on to say:
… a market structure in which there are multiple providers of retail telephony and broadband services—and they all operate over the same network on equal terms. For that to happen, none of them must own or control the network. Instead, they must buy services from the owner of the network and in turn the network owner must be restricted to selling services in the wholesale market rather than the retail market.
Those are very wise words indeed from the member for Bradfield. Today I would be saying to the Leader of the Opposition—
Where’s the bit about the $43 billion?
The member for Bradfield is trying to insert some more wise words into the debate, and I thank him for his help and contribution. My point, of course, is that we seek expeditious passage of this legislation, because every day that it is delayed is a day of higher prices and fewer services for Australians, particularly Australians in regional areas. I note that representatives of regional areas like the member for Lyne, like the member for New England and like the member for Kennedy have recognised the merits of broadband for regional areas. So to the Leader of the Opposition I simply say: get out a copy of the member for Bradfield’s book, have a look at that statement and, in line with that statement, ensure that you do not seek to wreck this reform—and get on with the job of passing this important piece of legislation.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the former Prime Minister’s special deal over the Oceanic Viking require Australia to take any of the 17 passengers currently in Romania, some of whom have been rejected by the United States and Canada on security grounds?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to a statement about this matter by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship which was released on Friday last week and which indicates that there are 17 asylum seekers who have been in a transit centre in Romania. As I understand the situation, processing of their refugee claims has been done. Of course, before they would be able to come to Australia there would have to be appropriate security clearances in the normal way.
My question is to the Treasurer. Why is the National Broadband Network important for our future economy?
I thank the member for Moreton for a very important question. The National Broadband Network is absolutely critical to building a stronger, more modern and more competitive economy. When we came to office broadband speed in this country lagged behind that of 26 other OECD countries. Our internet services at that stage were the fifth most expensive in the OECD. As the Prime Minister was saying before, whenever you go in regional Australia—whether you go to Mackay, to Launceston, to Townsville or to the vast electorate of Kennedy—regional Australians absolutely understand the importance of superfast broadband. They understand the importance of being connected to the national economy and in particular they understand the importance of being connected to the international economy. We are something like 17th out of 31 OECD countries when it comes to penetration, and that is felt particularly acutely in regional Australia.
So we do need to strengthen our technological infrastructure through a first-class broadband network as a way to strengthen and broaden our economy. We have extensive research that shows what a boost this will be to GDP. The Centre for International Economics found that it will increase GDP by 1.4 per cent after just five to six years. For business, this means dramatically lower telephone bills and enhanced services, such as high-definition videoconferencing. In all of these areas it certainly means lower business costs, and it means higher employment.
Building the National Broadband Network will create something like 25,000 jobs per year. We know that superfast broadband really drives productivity—something like 78 per cent of productivity gains in service businesses and 85 per cent in manufacturing businesses. These sorts of productivity gains can come from this type of information communication technology. And of course it can dramatically enhance workforce participation. We do need to keep up with our major trading partners. Japan and Korea, for example, are way ahead of Australia, and many others are catching up.
But of course, all of this is opposed by those opposite. They want to stay with horse-and-buggy communications. They do not want to join the modern era which is going to drive productivity in this economy. We want to build a modern economy, and those opposite simply want to tear it down. Of course, the member for Wentworth was given that job—to tear down this vital productivity-enhancing initiative which is so important to future prosperity in this country. So what we are going to see now is delaying tactics in this House for an initiative which will build our economy for the future, drive our productivity, drive our competitiveness and give us the prosperity that we all seek.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her proposal for a regional processing centre in East Timor. Will the Prime Minister define which countries constitute ‘the region’ under her proposal?
I know the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, like the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has flown over a lot of countries in the last few days, but Australia is in the same place it was when she left—so, on the basis that Australia is in the same place that it was when she left, we live in the same region. How would you like to define it? ‘Asia-Pacific’ might be the kind of way that you would define it, I think. Australia has not moved since she left. We will pursue dialogue. But there are formal processes for pursuing this dialogue, including through the Bali process that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has referred to in his various statements. The minister for immigration has also been involved in dialogue in the region. Prior to the parliament commencing its sittings, he was in Dili, he was in Kuala Lumpur and he was in Jakarta pursuing these discussions. So we will work on this dialogue. We are obviously predominantly interested in the countries through which people transit, the most common routes for irregular people movement. You would expect that to be our prime area of interest. But, in terms of working across the region, we obviously want to work broadly with regional partners and neighbours.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Why is the National Broadband Network so important for Australian households and businesses, and why does the government not support plans to delay its rollout?
I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. The National Broadband Network will be the backbone of our future economy. It will transform our regions, it will drive competition, it will drive productivity and it will drive job creation—the jobs of the new century, the jobs of the future. The bill that I introduced today, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010, will introduce the structural separation of Telstra, something that should have been done when Telstra was privatised—but there was delay after delay after delay—as is recognised by many opposite now, including the current member for Bradfield. Now this legislation enables it to happen, with significant benefit to consumers. It is a part of the government’s comprehensive plan for a truly national broadband network. Over the decade, we saw 19 failed plans from the opposition, none of them complete. We are determined to move on with the job.
I am asked why we should not delay. There have been a range of proposals for us to delay this project. Firstly, we were told we had to wait for the ACCC advice. Then we were told we had to wait for the implementation study to be completed. Then we were told we had to wait for the response to the implementation study. We were also told that those opposite were waiting for one of the five separate Senate inquiries that have occurred into the NBN that have produced five separate reports. Now we have more proposals to delay. We are told that we should wait for a seven-month long Productivity Commission inquiry, even though the proponent of this inquiry says that he will not take any notice of whether it gives the rollout the tick or not; he will still continue to oppose it because that is the job that he has been given.
We are also being told we need a joint select committee to oversee the rollout of the NBN. So we should not have experts, such as we have got in charge of NBN Co., overseeing the rollout of the NBN; the new development of those opposite is that infrastructure rollouts should be overseen by joint committees. It is a bit like the ‘phone a boat’ proposal of the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to asylum seekers. The fact is that we have released an implementation study that provides a comprehensive financial analysis. It says that there is a strong and viable business case. It says that there is a sufficient rate of return to cover the cost of funds. It says that there will be positive earnings by year 6. And it says that the cost estimates are conservative. That is why we must get on with the job of building this vital infrastructure, not retreat from it. The only retreat that needs to happen on this issue is a retreat from the wrecking strategy that those opposite have when it comes to the National Broadband Network.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her comments in the House that the government’s intention to accommodate 1,200 detainees at the Curtin detention centre was funded in the budget. Will the Prime Minister refer the House to the page in the budget papers or any media statement by the Prime Minister or minister that makes reference to a capacity of 1,200 places at Curtin detention centre funded by an appropriation in the budget?
We are having a very strange day in question time indeed. I regret to inform the member that I do not have committed to memory every page of the budget and every line item in the budget. In the time that I have been in this parliament, possibly the former member for Bradfield might have been able to achieve that feat, but I am not aware of anybody else with that capacity. Obviously, when budget appropriations were done they were done appropriately. As I have said in this parliament before, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship works through—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The direct question was: ‘Where is the reference in the budget to that material?’ Perhaps the Prime Minister could be honest and take it on notice and come back to the House.
The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
I repeat for the member for Mackellar that I do not have committed to memory every page of the budget and every word on every page of the budget. Obviously, the budget deals with appropriations for the department of immigration, and those appropriations are used for detention purposes, including being used for the announcements that have been made most recently. In the announcement made on Monday, there was a net additional spend of $54 million.
I seek leave to table page 326 of the budget measures 2010-11. It is an appropriation for capital works—
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister advise the House—
Mr Morrison interjecting
The member for Petrie will start again for the member for Cook’s benefit.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the—
The member for Petrie will resume her seat, because the Manager of Opposition Business is now asking me a question or has a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The reason that the member for Cook is a bit unruly is that the member for Durack did not got the opportunity to finish explaining what he wanted to table.
The member for Sturt will resume his seat. He cannot justify people’s unruly behaviour in any manner. I suggest to the member for Sturt that an occupant of the chair gets wary of devices being used to place on the record comments that are out of order. In the case of the member for Durack—and it is a blessing for me—he exactly identified the document that he wished to have tabled. He then decided that he would go on to describe it or put a case. That was unfortunate for him, because I can say that, when I asked whether House gave leave for the tabling, the document had been clearly identified. Leave was not granted. I will not allow people to use devices to place on the record argument. The member for Petrie has the call.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister advise the House of the rollout of e-health and telehealth advancements and how these have been received?
I thank the member for Petrie for her question. She, I know, is one of the members in North Brisbane who is very pleased with the lead implementation sites that are currently contracted to provide e-health services in three geographic areas across the country: northern Brisbane, the Hunter Valley and in eastern Melbourne. GP Partners in Brisbane have been leading advocates for the benefits of e-health and for the enormous potential, not just when we combine e-health and telehealth in terms of changing Medicare and providing different support for after hours GP services but when we use the power of broadband to ensure that more and more people have access in their own homes. This will also enable teleconferencing and make it possible for GPs and nurses to sit with patients and talk with specialists in the middle of town or perhaps many thousands of kilometres away. Those things will become reality.
We have already allocated $20 million worth of investments in those three lead sites. But there is another $55 million that will shortly be available. Expressions of interest will be called for. This will provide benefits for many communities, but particularly for regional communities where there is a great thirst for using new technology and changes and reforms to our health system to deliver better services. These investments and our commitment to introducing an electronic health record, to advances in telehealth and to the National Broadband Network have been widely endorsed. From the health professions, we have the support of the AMA, the Nurses Federation, the College of GPs, the divisions of GPs, pathologists and the Consumer Health Forum. I know that in the audience today there are paramedics, radiologists and others who see this as the opportunity to at last unleash the potential to provide services to our diverse population, many of whom are often enormous distances from places where particular specialised services can be made available. We are determined to make sure that our health system is modernised to make the most of these services and we are determined to make sure that with the implementation and rollout of the National Broadband Network we allow more technology—perhaps technology that we have not even yet imagined—to be developed to provide solutions that meet the needs of the community.
Unfortunately, despite the widespread community support for these investments, there is one notable difference. I have been asked about the responses to these investments and, unfortunately, we know that the Liberal Party not only opposed our millions of dollars of investment in e-health but opposed our investments in telehealth and the National Broadband Network. The great potential for what will be available in communities across the country is going to be held back if the Liberal Party is able to get its way and stop these investments.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister, or any of her ministers, say to BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto or Xstrata representatives during negotiations on the minerals resource rent tax that all state and territory royalties will be creditable against the resource tax liability?
I thank the member for his question and obviously his question arises from some publicity in today’s newspapers about the minerals resource rent tax. On the direct matter that he raises, I can advise that the Policy Transition Group, which the relevant minister is attending and which is being led by Don Argus, is working its way through a number of issues. That is exactly what it is there for. We have said all along we will credit existing royalties and scheduled increases and the Policy Transition Group will advise on the best way to do that to provide certainty to the industry. Obviously, in implementing the minerals resource rent tax it just makes commonsense that we not give a green light to state and territory governments to increase royalties, with us effectively footing the bill. I would take this opportunity to remind the member—and it is something that ultimately the opposition in this place is going to have to exercise its votes on—that the proceeds of the minerals resource rent tax are going to expand the productive capacity—
Order! The member for Groom will resume his seat. The Prime Minister must directly relate her remarks to the question.
On the question the member has asked me, I have indicated what the answer is and I am simply asking the member and the opposition to also look at the other side of the equation: the reductions in company tax, the growth in national savings and the infrastructure.
Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Given that in light of the Prime Minister’s answer there is a clear difference of understanding between the government and the mining companies over this matter, I ask: why did she dud the mining industry over this matter?
Order! That is argument and, as I said yesterday, I will be ruling those types of question out of order and will not be offering the ability to reword.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance of transparent and credible fiscal policy?
I thank the member for McEwen for his question. As members know, Australia came through the global financial crisis and the global recession in better shape than any other major developed economy. Our net debt position is a tiny fraction of what it is in major developed economies and we are getting back into surplus well before all of those. While we were putting in place the policies to avoid recession, we were also putting in place the policies to promote the recovery—both at the same time. Absolutely critical were the strict fiscal rules that we outlined in this House early in 2009—that is, putting in place our two per cent expenditure cap. For example, it is very important in bringing the budget back to surplus, and banking any revenue improvements is also important, but it takes hard work. What that means is that the budget is coming back to surplus in three years, three years early. It means our net debt position is substantially lower than in any other major developed economy at six per cent compared to something like 90 per cent for the other major developed economies. This task and this achievement has been recognised extensively by international agencies. This is what the International Monetary Fund had to say just a couple of weeks ago:
… returning quickly to budget surpluses as the authorities intend will put Australia on firmer footing to deal with future shocks.
Then they go on to say of our fiscal consolidation:
… is faster than past consolidations in Australia and plans in most other advanced economies.
We had Standard and Poor’s make this comment on 24 September:
Australia has one of the strongest fiscal positions globally with a net general government debt burden less than half the level of AAA rated countries.
It has taken a lot of hard work to do this and it takes more than the effort that we have seen from those on the other side with their $10.6 billion costing con job. You cannot just walk in five minutes before midnight, as the shadow Treasurer did and the shadow finance spokesperson did, and expect that you can be credible. What we have seen is that they ignored the advice of the accounting firm. There was no audit of their costings and they got nine dollars out of 10 of their net saves wrong—nine dollars out of 10 absolutely wrong.
Order! The Treasurer will return directly to the question.
It shows there is no fiscal strategy on that side of the House.
Order! The Treasurer is now absolutely arguing a case. He needs to be directly relevant to the question.
Mr Speaker, I was outlining the importance of a strict fiscal strategy, which the government has implemented with great discipline. At the time that we were dealing with the global recession we put in place strict fiscal rules, but those on the other side of the House do not understand the importance of such a strategy.
Order! The Treasurer is arguing the case. He is now debating the matter. The Treasurer will relate his remarks directly to the question.
I was outlining how important it is to our prosperity that strict fiscal rules are put in place, particularly when it comes to spending, particularly when it comes to banking upward revisions of revenue, and explaining how important it is that those policies need to be seen to be credible, and that a $10.6 billion costing con job, such as those that were put forward during the last election campaign, is completely inappropriate.
Order! The Treasurer will resume his place.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question to the Treasurer.
The member for North Sydney will resume his seat, and the member for Denison will resume his seat. Again I find myself delaying the House, which I am trying to avoid but manage to do all the time. For two reasons the member for North Sydney has been invited to resume his seat. Firstly, there was an attempt for a supplementary, which I will acknowledge, but I will take it that the attempt allowed the Leader of the Opposition to get on the record a point which goes to the matters that I was raising about other devices being used to put an argument. I think that would mean that in a strict interpretation of an opportunity and an attempt, even though it failed, a message was placed on the record which I cannot expunge by ruling it out of order.
On the second matter, which I am glad that we have addressed, I congratulate the member for North Sydney for highlighting a point, where he was attempting to raise a supplementary question on a question that had been asked by the other side, and I do thank him for that. But I have to disappoint him that, in my rulings on supplementary questions at this point in time—I repeat ‘at this point in time’—that is a bridge too far for me, even though the other jurisdictions that I referred to would have allowed it. In fairness to the member for North Sydney I have given a full explanation. As I said, I have decided that it is a bridge too far to allow it, but it is something that a mature house in other jurisdictions is able to accommodate and maybe sometime down the track, when others besides the Leader of the Opposition and his delegate can ask supplementaries, it is something that we should consider, because it would lead to a much more lively question time.
We’re up for it.
Order! Again, I refer to my pleas of last parliament. I really would leave that in the hands of the Procedure Committee. I apologise to the member for Denison: he now has the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister. At the 2010 federal election, ALP candidates right around Australia made numerous specific promises about what the government would do in their electorates if Labor were returned nationally. The promises hinged on who would win government, not who would win the seat. Regardless of the results in each of those seats, do you commit to honouring the electorate-specific promises made by the Labor candidate in my seat of Denison and, for that matter, in all 150 communities represented in this place?
I thank the member for Denison for his question and believe I have good news for him, which is yes, I do commit to keeping the promises at a local level that Labor and Labor candidates made at the last election, including the promises we made in the electorate of Denison. The reason I am able to say that with confidence is that during the election campaign we had a proper process of costing, which means we understood the costs of the promises that we were making. We made proper provision for them and we made proper provision for them in a context where the budget is coming back to surplus in 2012-13 and where across the election campaign our promises were matched by offsetting savings. Consequently I can say yes to the member for Denison with a degree of confidence. Of course, that is in sharp contrast to the circumstance that the opposition found itself in, with an $11 billion black hole—
Order! The Prime Minister will tread carefully.
and a shadow Treasurer that could not even be bothered looking at the costings. I thank the member for Denison for his question.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Why is a price on carbon essential for our future economy and how is such reform viewed by the broader community?
I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. The long-term economic future of this country is interdependent with a sustainable environment. You only have to think of the risks to key sectors of our economy, like agriculture, that climate change represents. That is a why the establishment of a carbon price in our economy is needed. It will reduce pollution and help address the challenge of climate change, it will establish certainty for business investments to be made so that investors can understand and properly analyse the returns on an investment over time, it will help drive investment in clean energy, it will create new jobs and it will ensure our future economic competitiveness.
A range of leaders in the business community recognise the importance of establishing a carbon price. Mr Graham Bradley, the President of the Business Council of Australia, has indicated that there will:
… inevitably be the need for a market based mechanism that will give us the lowest cost approach to reducing the carbon intensity of our industries.
Mr Richard McIndoe, the Managing Director of TRUenergy, has said this:
We all would like a price on carbon.
Dr Nikki Williams, the Chief Executive of the New South Wales Minerals Council, has said this:
The principle of a carbon price is one that the industry supports.
None other than the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, said this on 20 May this year, only a number of months ago:
Inevitably we’ll have a price on carbon … we’ll have to.
Admittedly, of course, there has been considerable debate about what form a carbon price should take, but some of the other comments community leaders have made are instructive. One of them said:
If you want to put a price on carbon, why not do it with a simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?
That contribution was made by none other than the Leader of the Opposition last year. So he has previously advocated in the media a carbon tax. He also made some comments in relation to emissions trading when he said last year:
I think that the science is far from settled but on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that’s I think why it makes sense to have an ETS.
Those were the Leader of the Opposition’s positions on two different occasions, but neither is the position that we hear now. What we hear now it is rank opportunism and economic irresponsibility. We hear bald slogans and we see empty gestures. He is completely repudiating the national interest of this country with the position he is taking. Mainstream business understands that we need a price on carbon in our economy. That is mainstream business thinking. What we hear from the opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, is all over the place.
Order! The minister is now going wider than talking about views of the broader community.
They will not act in the national interest, and we call on them to do so.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the government undertaken modelling on the impact on prices of proposed cuts to the water allocations in the Murray-Darling Basin?
I thank the member for North Sydney very much for the question—
Mr Dutton interjecting
Order! The question has been asked and the Prime Minister is responding.
What I can say to the member for North Sydney about the process that is being gone through at the moment is that it is a guide. And because it is a guide for further consultation leading to a draft plan and then leading ultimately to a plan that the minister signs off and brings to the parliament—
Yes or no?
Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Dickson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94a.
Honourable members interjecting—
I take it that he burped.
He bowed.
Well, he bowed with a noise.
Honourable members interjecting—
Sorry. I call the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will respond to the question.
As I was saying to the member for North Sydney, there is a process—a process on the water act, a process being undergone by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—
Mr Symon interjecting
Order! The member for Deakin will withdraw that remark.
I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
On a point of order on direct relevance, Mr Speaker: the Prime Minister could not have been asked a more direct question. Has modelling been undertaken or not?
Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. I think it was a short, well-constructed question, but I cannot dictate the manner in which it is being responded to. I think that if the House waited a little bit with bated breath they would see that an answer could be considered directly relevant. That may be a vain hope of the chair, but I believe that that was what the answer was building to. I call the Prime Minister.
I am outlining for good reason the process which is in the hands of an independent authority, because it goes to the member for North Sydney’s question. What we are intending to do is to have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority go through this proper process. At the same time, the parliament will go through a proper process through the committee led by the member for New England. I understand that the member for North Sydney, inspired by the Leader of the Opposition, may be in the fearmongering business and that he may be wanting to spark a campaign here, but on this side of the House we are determined to work through this complex reform—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. I simply suggest to those on my left that, if I was not having to deal with them and they were allowing me clearly to listen to the answer, we might proceed in the way that they wish to proceed. But all the ruction in the way that it is put to me prevents me from actually hearing what is going on. The Prime Minister will be directly relevant to the question. She will not enter into debate across the table.
We will pursue these reforms. We will pursue them under the relevant legislation guided by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the parliamentary committee. There is only one question here: is the opposition seeking to wreck this reform? (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Will the minister explain the government’s approach to water reform and how these reforms have been received?
I thank the member for Bendigo for the question. What needs to be recognised is that what we are trying to achieve, and what we have been trying to achieve since the Water Act was first introduced, is three outcomes: to deliver a healthy river system, to deliver it acknowledging the importance of food production and to deliver strong regional communities. That is the objective. That was the objective when the Water Act was first introduced and this government’s determination to reach that objective is there as well. Anyone who saw the National Press Club address today would have seen the comments from the National Irrigators Council, from the National Farmers Federation and from the Australian Conservation Foundation—all agreeing with the importance of those three objectives.
Particularly yesterday, following some comments that were made in Senate estimates but also following some comments that were made by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority during its consultation, there was a level of concern and angst both within the parliament and throughout the community generally as to whether or not the act in its current form delivers on those three outcomes. I know the Leader of the Nationals has made comments on it. I know the member for Wentworth verballed me in making comments on it on PM yesterday and in the Herald today—and he knows he has too. But there is a reasonable call for the issue to be clarified. There are two ways to deal with it. You can deal with it in the divisive way of those who have been unfairly, and I think in quite a mean way, describing the member for Wentworth as a roadblock, which I think is the cruelty of the National Party. But what we need to do is to have this issue clarified, because there is actually common ground on the three objectives. There is common ground on those three objectives in communities, through the peak bodies and, I believe, on both sides of this parliament.
Last Thursday I sought legal advice on this issue from my department. It has not yet come through. When it does come through, I think it will help inform the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, members of this parliament and the communities that are affected within the basin as to what the requirements of the act are and how the act plays a role in helping us deliver what is referred to as the triple bottom line approach—an approach that acknowledges that everybody needs the environmental outcome. The environmental outcome is important in itself but it is essential for the communities and essential for the irrigators, as is food production, as is having strong regional communities.
It is my intention, once that advice is available, to make it available both to the authority and generally. There is an argument going back and forth about what was intended. There are arguments and stories in today’s Sydney Morning Herald about divisions within parties and across parties on whether or not the act needs to be changed. My view is: let’s have a look at the legal advice. Let’s see whether the different views that have been coming from the authority are backed up by the advice itself. Let’s acknowledge that the government’s triple bottom line approach of all three outcomes is what those in opposition once claimed they sought too when they were in government. It is certainly what the member for Wentworth sought and I hope it is what the Leader of the Opposition is willing to help deliver.
My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Minister, Taskers New Holland, a family machinery dealership in Deniliquin in my electorate of Farrer will not be taking on two new apprentices next year as a result of their concerns for future business prospects given the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s guide. Why didn’t the minister give any consideration to the impact on businesses and families of drastic cuts prior to the release of the Murray-Darling Basin guide?
If the question from the member for Farrer is ‘Why didn’t I intervene on the authority?’—that is effectively what she is asking, because none of the things that were just referred to could occur without me intervening on the independent authority—the question is about why I was not willing to act contrary to the Water Act. There is a pretty simple answer as to why a minister in the government is not going to act against the law. The authority is independent under the Water Act, which was brought in under the coalition government and which was supported by the member for Farrer.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: now the minister has intervened and asked for a socioeconomic study. My question was—
Order! The member for Farrer will resume her seat. On the point of order of relevance, the minister is responding directly to the question.
I find it extraordinary if the argument is that the seeking of legal advice amounts to intervention. If that is the argument, that is absolutely extraordinary. For the benefit of the business that is referred to, and for the decisions that that business is undertaking, can I say this: if the decision is taken in the framework that they do not believe they should be taking any decisions at the moment because there will be water reform, that is a business decision in the context of water reform. If they are making a decision based on a belief that the numbers in the guide are government policy then that is a mistaken belief. The numbers in the guide are not government policy. There is only one side of this chamber that ever promised to implement a draft document, and it was the Leader of the Opposition, during the campaign, who was going to release the draft within two weeks and proceed to implement it immediately. That was never our policy. Our principle has always been that we will implement the final plan. The final plan will be brought down after there has been an opportunity for direct ministerial involvement, and that is the way the act is constructed. That is the way we will operate. Anybody presuming that the guide somehow represents a final landing point misunderstands the intention of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and also certainly misrepresents where the government is at.
Mr Pyne interjecting
The member for Sturt has had a fair degree of charity today. He will not use unparliamentary remarks; he will not talk over everybody.
My question is to the Minister for Trade. Minister, what role does trade play in Australia’s economic growth and how will the Doha Round assist in strengthening the Australian economy?
I thank the member for Throsby on asking his first question. I congratulate him on his first question and on his first speech, which was a very fine speech. I am asked about the role of trade in generating economic growth and jobs in this country and also about the place of the Doha Round in all of that. The best estimates are that one in seven Australians is engaged in an industry that is involved in exports from this country. My own view is that the total benefit of exports from this country is far greater because, obviously, there are industries that supply our export industries. Even so, one in seven is a very important contribution. Our future continues to be as a trading nation, a nation that therefore through exports is able to generate high-skill, high-wage, high-quality jobs. That is why trade is so important to this country.
I would like to acknowledge the wonderful contribution of my predecessor as Minister for Trade, the member for Hotham, for his untiring efforts in seeking to improve market access for Australian exporters. I will not attribute this result entirely to the previous Minister for Trade, but I will point out that we have now had five successive monthly trade surpluses, the most recent one being the third biggest surplus on record. That came as a big turnaround on 76 successive monthly trade deficits under the previous coalition government. I will not blame the coalition for every one of those 76 trade deficits, but of course I would suggest that a majority of them would be the coalition’s fault.
What has happened since the beginning of that very long run of trade deficits is that the mining industry has now produced a lot more minerals, following investment. But our whole story is not a mining story. Do you know that 54 per cent of our exports are non-mining exports and that during the teeth of the deepest global recession since the Great Depression there has been a growth in service economy exports of an average of 4.6 per cent per annum? I think that is a pretty good effort for our service economy exporters. They still account for only 22 per cent of our exports, but again the former Minister for Trade has been very influential in lifting the profile of our service economy exports and also of our manufactured exports.
As to the future, we believe that there is reason for some optimism about the restarting of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations that stalled in mid-2008. I have been to the United States—for the benefit of the member for Curtin, that is a big country to the far north-east of Australia—and the Doha Round opens up the possibility of much improved market access not only for our manufacturers but importantly for those service economy exports. It seems, as a result of discussions I had with the administration in the United States, that the US is keen to restart these stalled negotiations by augmenting the existing offers from 2008 with a very substantial services package. That would be good for Australia. This government will continue to work tirelessly on those multilateral trade negotiations, on our regional negotiations and on our bilateral negotiations. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what financial recourse is there for households who paid for their own roof inspections, in light of the failure of the government’s Home Insulation Program, because they feared for their family’s safety and were frustrated by extended delays with government expansions? Prime Minister, why are these people not being compensated for any reasonable cost of inspections?
I thank the member for his question. I would say to the member that if there is a specific constituent matter that he wants to raise either directly with me or with the relevant minister then I am happy to respond to it. On the Home Insulation Program in general, the member would probably be aware that there is an inspection regime. There is a telephone number that people can ring to get an inspection. Obviously, inspections are proceeding on a risk basis, so there is a way of working through. I am keen, if the member has a specific matter or constituent issue on his mind, to see the full details of it and then I will give him a detailed response.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. What progress has been made on delivering improved housing in the Northern Territory?
I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. I am pleased to be able to report that there have been improvements in housing for Indigenous people in remote communities in the Northern Territory. This is important for many reasons, not the least of which is the reason highlighted by the most recent inquiry into child protection in the Northern Territory that was released last Monday. That report highlighted the role that overcrowded housing plays in the impact on family wellbeing. I think all of us would be aware that decent housing is vital if we are to see a safe environment in which children can grow up.
Our housing program in the Northern Territory is now on track to deliver 750 new homes, 230 rebuilds of homes and 2½ thousand refurbishments of homes by 2013, and all of that in remote communities in the Northern Territory. We did in fact exceed our target for the most recent financial year and, as at 11 October 2010, 82 new houses had been completed, and we have 101 houses under construction, in remote communities in the Northern Territory. Six hundred and forty-five refurbishments and rebuilds of houses have been completed and another 105 refurbishments and rebuilds are under way.
One of the other important parts of this program is our effort to build a strong Indigenous workforce. We have around 300 Indigenous people currently employed in this housing program—around 30 per cent of the housing workforce in these remote communities is Indigenous, well above our 20 per cent commitment. We have now got the program management costs down to eight per cent, which is a significant improvement. There are now independent assessments that show that this program is well on track. We do of course understand that we have got an enormous amount more to do in remote Indigenous housing, both in the Northern Territory and in other parts of remote Australia. We have made a very, very significant financial commitment to address that need and we intend to get on with the job.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government suppressing the results of 96,000 foil and non-foil insulation safety inspections that show the extent of the risk of fire and electrocution under the government’s Home Insulation Program? Does the Prime Minister support the suppression of this safety information from the more than 1.1 million homeowners whose roofs are still to be inspected?
I thank the member for her question, which I believe may be her first. What I can say to her is that I presume she is referring to the sample that was referred to in the Auditor-General’s report. What I would say to her about that sample is that it was a sample that was risk based, so it is not an accurate sample of the program overall. The figure is not necessary representative of all installations, so consequently the government have determined that we will not be providing a running commentary on the results of the inspections today because that data would not be helpful because of the risk profile. An expert—
Mr Abbott interjecting
The Leader of the Opposition was clearly not listening. It is not a representative sample of the program overall. What we will do of course is continue to work through, providing inspections to households. They are being provided on a risk basis. There is a number that people can call and obviously all foil is being inspected. At the end of those processes we will obviously be in a different position in relation to information than we are now where the data that the member refers to is not a representative sample overall.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Materiel. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the Super Hornet acquisition project and the benefits of this project to Australia’s defence capability.
Can I thank the member for Blair for his question. This is a very important project. I recently visited RAAF Base Amberley with the member and we were briefed by Wing Commander Murray ‘Dog’ Jones about this project. Earlier this year, the RAAF took delivery of the first 11 Super Hornets, and I can advise the House that three more are scheduled to arrive later this year. Ten more are due over the course of next year. All will be based at Amberley. These are state-of-the-art fighter planes and a step from on the current classic Hornets.
All three of the aircraft on their way will be wired with the potential to be converted in the future into Growlers. Growlers would give us the ability to jam the electronics systems of enemy aircraft and land based radars and communications systems. Twelve Super Hornets will be wired in this way and this will provide future governments with the option to add this capability in the future.
I can also advise the House that testing is now complete on a new glide missile the Super Hornets will carry called the Joint Standoff Weapon C. It can glide for up to 100 kilometres and destroy targets like concrete walls and bunkers with pinpoint accuracy. Testing over the last two months at the Woomera test range has been successful. This means that the Super Hornets are on track to become operational later this year.
A lot of credit for this must go to the former Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson. The Super Hornets would not be in Australia if not for the decision that he made. Credit should also go to the member for Hunter, the Chief Government Whip, who was the driving force behind the decision to wire 12 of the Super Hornets with the potential to be converted to Growlers in the future, and to the former Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, and former Minister for Defence Materiel, now the Minister for Climate Change, who have overseen the delivery of the Super Hornets on time and under budget. This project is an important part of delivering the defence capability we need and there are a lot of defence personnel working with industry and the US Navy to make sure it is a success.
The arrival of the Super Hornets marks an important transition for the RAAF. The final F111 squadron will be decommissioned later this year after four decades of service. On 2 December, the RAAF will be holding a decommissioning parade at Amberley, and the next day the F111s will do their final fly-past and the last of their signature dump-and-burns. There will be many more people to recognise that week, as we mark the end of one chapter of Australia’s military aviation history and start another with the arrival of the Super Hornets.
I have a question for the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of the case of the Cowan Public School, in the Berowra electorate, who requested a new school hall under the Building the Education Revolution program but were instead given two classrooms? Now a demountable classroom they have been using as a school hall is being removed, leaving them with no school hall at all. In the light of this example of quite inadequate management in the school hall program, will the government commit to supporting a judicial inquiry into Building the Education Revolution?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The answer to the last part of his question is no, we will not be committing to a judicial inquiry. The reason is that we have been totally transparent in the way in which the funding for this program has been used.
I was asked the other day a similar question by the member for Fairfax as to whether I was aware of a similar complaint to this. Can I just make this point so that there is no misunderstanding from the other side. There is a process in place in which, if there are complaints, those complaints can be referred, and it is called the Orgill committee. It has open terms of reference that enable all of these issues to be dealt with so that we can not only determine whether there is value for money but address the problems. My point to both of those members and anyone seeking to ask is that I would urge them in future to ask themselves the question: has this complaint been referred to the Orgill committee, and have they pursued it through a process that we have set up to address these issues? Have they referred it? Because, as it turns out, the complaint of the member for Fairfax has not been referred to the Orgill committee.
So do not come in here and moralise about committees of inquiry if you are not even prepared to use the process that exists now. Use the process; that is what it is there for. We have been addressing the problems in the past. If all you want to do is come in here and raise points of order or issues that have been raised in the newspaper, you are not servicing your electorates properly.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! No minister should see that as a precedent for argument.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! That was why it was not a precedent.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice. Minister, what action is the government taking to combat serious and organised crime, including the scourge of drug trafficking?
I thank the member for Fowler for his question and his ongoing interest in these very important matters. In December 2008, a federal government for the very first time decided to ensure that we properly and appropriately recognised serious and organised crime as a matter of national security. In November last year, the government—that is, the Attorney and I—launched and created the Organised Crime Strategic Framework, and in February this year we enacted legislation that went to serious and organised crime, empowering our law enforcement agencies to combat serious organised syndicates.
It is estimated that serious and organised crime costs this country anywhere between $10 billion and $15 billion each and every year. It is a great challenge for all governments of this country and indeed all local enforcement and intelligence domestic agencies around the nation. With this in mind, I congratulate the Australian Federal Police and Customs and Border Protection on last week seizing almost half a tonne of cocaine, the third-largest cocaine haul in Australia’s history—464 kilograms of cocaine, with an estimated street value of $160 million. This complex operation required careful planning and coordination between not only the AFP and Customs and Border Protection but also the New South Wales and Queensland police. I would like to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to the agencies in my portfolio for the outstanding role they played in this very significant drug bust. Three men were charged and 12 search warrants were executed across New South Wales and Queensland, uncovering—I am advised—a clandestine drug laboratory at Eden, in New South Wales. This is coupled with the seizure of 240 kilograms of cocaine in June this year. Our law enforcement agencies are working very hard to combat serious and organised crime.
The other important element of this operation is that this matter might not have been triggered if it were not for the good cooperation, the very close cooperation, we have with law enforcement agencies in other countries. Indeed, the US Drug Enforcement Administration referred this matter to the Australian Federal Police, which from that point allowed the operation to ensue and which has led to the success to date.
Organised criminals and drug traffickers in this country are on notice that our agencies are working very hard to combat serious and organised crime. As I have said before, we know that money is the lifeblood of organised crime. We know that illicit drug trafficking is the primary source of that income, so we need to follow the money. We need to stem the money flow to those organisations. If we do that more effectively, we will manage to land serious blows against organised crime in this country and indeed in countries that we work very closely with. This is a high priority of this government. We will continue to work very closely with other governments of this nation and other governments in the region and around the world to combat this very serious issue.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
The Prime Minister sought to engage in selective quotation from my book to imply that I support Labor’s policy. I am firmly opposed to Labor’s policy to waste $43 billion—
The member will resume his seat. The member has explained where he has been misrepresented and he cannot further debate.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Before I heard you say that the member just then had made his point, the microphone was switched off on the member for Bradfield when the Leader of the House stood at the dispatch box.
I will worry about other things as well, but I say to the member for North Sydney that if I had intervened it would be switched off. It is not the policy. The Leader of the House jumps a lot of times but I do not think has got any control over the microphones.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order, during the member for North Sydney’s point of order the Minister for Resources and Energy made an extremely unparliamentary remark and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.
In the hubbub I did not hear it. I will ask the Minister for Resources and Energy to withdraw to assist the House.
I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 25 October 2010. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Pursuant to standing order 222, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members’ business on Monday, 25 October 2010. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO IRELAND AND ITALY
Australian Parliamentary delegation to Ireland and Italy, June-July 2010
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —statement may continue for 5 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Grierson 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 M r Turnbull : To present a Bill for an Act to require the preparation and publication of a business case and a cost benefit analysis of the proposed National Broadband Network, and for related purposes. ( National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 ). ( Notice given 19 October 2010. )
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes —pursuant to standing order 41.
2 M r Turnbull : To move:
That:
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Turnbull —10 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Ms HALL: To move:
That this House:
Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits —
Ms Hall —10 minutes.
Next three Members speaking —10 minutes
each.
Other Member —5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 mins+ 1 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (8 to 9.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
4 Mr ADAMS: To move:
That this House:
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Adams —10 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Ms PARKE: To move:
That this House:
Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time prior to 9.30 pm.
Speech time limits —
Ms Parke —10 minutes.
Next Member speaking —10 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Main Committee (approx 11 am to approx 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Orders of the day
1 COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE BUILDING THE EDUCATION REVOLUTION PROGRAM BILL 2010 (Mr Pyne) : Second reading (from 18 October 2010).
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Pyne —30 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 30 mins + 3 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 EVIDENCE AMENDMENT (JOURNALISTS’ PRIVILEGE) BILL 2010 (Mr Wilkie) : Second reading (from 18 October 2010).
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Wilkie —30 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 30 mins + 3 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices
1 Mr LYONS: To move:
That this House:
Time allotted —30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Lyons —10 minutes.
Next Member speaking —10 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Main Committee (approx 6.30 to 9 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 Ms OWENS: To move:
That this House:
Time allotted —30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Owens —10 minutes.
Next Member speaking —10 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Mr DUTTON: To move:
That this House:
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Dutton —10 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Mrs D’ATH: To move:
That this House recognises:
Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time prior to 9 pm.
Speech time limits —
Mrs D’Ath —10 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Petrie, Reid, Capricornia, Wills and Calwell to be members of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker.
I have received advice from Mr Bandt nominating himself to be a member of the Selection Committee.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Bandt be appointed a member of the Selection Committee.
Question agreed to.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following documents:Bundanon Trust—Report for 2009-10.Medicare Australia—Report for 2009-10—Correction. Migration Act 1958Section 486O—Assessment of detention arrangements—2010 Personal identifiers 595/10 to 599/10—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 Murray proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to undertake a balanced and properly informed process for the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
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—
The Murray-Darling Basin communities, which is are of course just out of drought or flood or locust damage, have been holding their breath waiting for the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin guide to the plan that will either give them a future or seal their fate. They have been apprehensive because they saw the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, before the last election put the plan away to make sure it did not see the light of day before the election. They also were aware that on commercial radio in South Australia the then Prime Minister in August said that she had not seen the plan but she certainly intended to have it comprehensively delivered. She would sign up to it after the election and she had already budgeted for the four years of water buyback that she implied would be part of that scheme.
So the basin communities were holding their breath because, after all, they depend on the environment, the quality of the water system that gives them the potential to grow product, some of the best product in the world. They also depend on healthy communities and of course they have to depend on government policy that does not stymie their capacity to grow food and to raise their children in the expectation that they too will have a decent life. After all, they believe in the win-win scenario. They also believe in the triple-bottom line, which it seems the minister, Tony Burke, has just discovered. The triple-bottom line is of course what coalition policy was all about, as the minister acknowledged, and it is what we need in the basin community: a win-win-win outcome acknowledging the triple-bottom line.
They knew too that the coalition left $5 billion for the on-farm water use efficiency and infrastructure measures. We anticipated that this government would use, or indeed the last government would use, that $5 billion effectively, and we had said that 50 per cent of the savings that came out of that water use efficiency program would be put back to the environment. But the basin communities saw that program trashed by probably the worst minister for water there has ever been since Federation, Minister Penny Wong. She also presided over the non-strategic water buyback. That was her policy in relation to how to get more water for the environment. That non-strategic water buy-back, in the teeth of the worst drought on record, meant that farmers were pressured by their lenders to sell water, which of course reduces their production capacity in the future.
We saw stranded assets in the irrigation systems, where, in my part of the world, 20 to 30 per cent of the farms were forced to sell their water. We saw that the water market price was distorted, because the government has very deep pockets. We saw stranded assets in the irrigation systems, we saw the higher costs for those who have not yet sold their water or are resisting their banks and we saw the degraded environment as dried out farms blew in the wind—and the weeds, the feral animals, the uncontrolled diseases, the problems with dying remnant vegetation because they could no longer afford to fence out their trees. That is what happens when you take water out of an area that has a 15-inch rainfall and a highly variable climate.
We experienced the water buy-back scheme for three years. We had the basin communities suffering three years of water policy ineffectiveness. The former minister for water, Penny Wong, has to have been the worst minister on record. Her programs were inefficiently and badly managed. I suppose we should not be surprised. After all, this is a government that cannot even manage a free pink batts installation program without killing people and having houses burn down.
But, given the importance of a Murray-Darling Basin plan, the basin community was still hopeful of one that would finally bring better governance across the jurisdictions. The basin communities hoped that Labor might get it right. After all, they had had three years to produce the plan and they had spent many scores of millions of dollars in the process.
The basin is important because, although it covers only some seven per cent of the continent, it produces 40 per cent of the food off 40 per cent of the farms. And it is the biggest and driest catchment on earth. The community does a magnificent job. But what other government in the world in this century would deliberately set out to destroy their food security by making it impossible for their food-growing communities to survive? The basin communities rationalised that they could not possibly get a plan that would destroy their livelihoods by sacrificing their capacity to produce food and fodder, which could not necessarily even guarantee the improvement of the ecosystems or the natural resource base that they depended on. So they held their breath and then, on Friday, 8 October at 4 pm the Australia public was handed a 220-page report—I have it here—which they read with disbelief. If it were implemented, as Prime Minister Gillard has promised she would, word for word, it would spell out the end of viable irrigated agriculture across the basin. It would do immeasurable damage to the expectations and the faith in the future of the 2.1 million people across the basin. We heard today in question time the examples of basin businesses that will no longer be employing people in the coming days. The plan would increase personal poverty and impoverish communities.
What did this guide do? There was no cost-benefit analysis and in particular no modelling of the food cost impact from less food being available on the Australian market. It had totally inadequate socioeconomic impact analysis. In fact, it was admitted upfront and quite loudly stated, ‘Oh, well, the legislation would not let us do it,’ and ‘the data was wrong.’ The chairman of the authority, Mr Mike Taylor, who should have known better, said, ‘I personally know there are extraordinary socioeconomic impacts involved in our proposals here, which involve up to 45 per cent of irrigation water being taken from the food producers. I know there is a serious problem here and, yes, we think the assessment of 800 job losses is grossly underestimated.’ Yet here it is in our basin guide. This guide has gone out to the communities across the basin, the people who have just survived the drought, survived Penny Wong’s buy-back scheme, survived the floods and now have to survive the pestilence. They read in the document that there will be 800 job losses and then they heard Michael Taylor saying, ‘Oh, yes, but we got that wrong.’ And why did they get that wrong? ‘Well, we think the section of the act did not really say we should look at socioeconomic impacts.’ Yes it does. The coalition’s Water Act 2007 quite categorically expresses the need and it insists that the socioeconomic impacts on the basin must be taken into account. Indeed, the content of the plan mandates that social, economic, cultural and Indigenous factors be taken into account.
I thought it was amazing that today the minister had the cheek to come to the dispatch box and say, ‘Oh, he is now going to go back and look at the legislation.’ Sorry, Minister, that is just an excuse. Get on with the job and pull the authority into line and tell them they have got to do much better before more of the basin community’s despair about any future employment activity and before our older farmers say, ‘It is just too hard. We will sell our water, not to Penny Wong this time but to Minister Burke, and we will walk away.’ The trouble is that the rest of the nation depends on the provision of the food they grow and a lot of our export earnings are derived from the production of fruit, fibre, meats, dairy products and nuts. Our access to fresh food and produce will be extraordinarily different if this plan goes ahead as it is proposed.
In the plan it states that up to 45 per cent of the water will be clawed back from the irrigators by simply tapping people on the shoulder in the communities and looking for willing sellers. I have already described to you the experiences of this policy over the last three years under Minister Penny Wong. Under the willing-sellers policy, if communities contract and associated businesses go broke, who compensates those who used to sell things such as the silage? Who compensates the small town whose school is reduced from three to one teacher when the families have left because they have had to become willing sellers when the banks leaned on them? And who compensates the veterinarians, the people who sell shoes and the hairdressers in those small towns? Who is going to deal with those fallouts and impacts? No, this scheme is just going to look at buying the water at market prices from so-called willing sellers. Do you know what the market prices are right now, given that it has rained and the basin is awash with water? The market prices are some 30 to 50 per cent less than they were two years ago.
So we have a serious problem of further poverty for the farmers who are forced to sell their water; yet they are some of the world’s most innovative and productive primary producers. They also are the people who manage the environmental services: for example, soil nutrition, water quality and biodiversity protection—the people who actually produce the sort of effort that makes sure the Mallee does not blow away and choke the cities. Those farmers can do that only when they are viable—when they have a few dollars to rub together so that they can not only feed themselves but go out and buy sprays for Paterson’s curse, buy bullets for the foxes and fence the remnant vegetation. You are talking about beggaring those individuals and those communities so that they will not be able to produce those environmental services which are the public good that we all depend on.
Who is going to do this work? Maybe the Department of Sustainability and the Environment in Victoria will. Do you really think so? Or maybe, in New South Wales, those rangers and all those other beaut people the government employs to do some of that work will do it. Look at the roadsides. Look at the invasion of weed on public lands. Look at who is being told to fix the locusts right now. It is not the public sector; it is the farmers. The farmers do all the heavy lifting to keep our ecosystems in a healthy state. They do it willingly because they happen to want to pass on their land in a better condition than it was when they received it from their fathers and grandfathers. That is what farmers tend to do. But, even when the farmers are corporations, they still have the production of environmental services as a by-product from what they do for the rest of Australia, because it makes sense economically for them. They know that if their property is in good shape it has a greater value.
What you are talking about is taking water off irrigators to the extent of a magical number. The Living Murray came up with 1,500 gigalitres as an estimated need for the environment. The report has it both ways. It goes from 3,000 to over 7,600 gigalitres—maybe. What a range. It is not sure quite what might help the environment, but it has a stab at a number, then divided by your grandmother’s birthday and that will do. What are we going to do with that number of gigalitres? Who would know, because there is no description in here of any water plans. The states will do those. When will the states do those? In the case of Victoria, in 2019.
So what we have is incredible insecurity, no faith in this government being capable of improving its performance in the area of environmental management or regional economy management and no evidence at all in this document that the 20 volumes that are somewhere out there will have any better information, justification or evaluation. I know the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities at the table has already panicked and said, ‘Oops! We’d better get the Murray-Darling Basin Authority out there now doing a socioeconomic impact assessment analysis, and they’d better report by March next year.’ Yes, that is what they are going to do—the minister is shaking his head..
It’s not what I told them.
The minister says he did not tell them to do that. The minister has asked, in parallel to the authority doing this report, that a new parliamentary committee to be headed up by Mr Windsor to do the socioeconomic impact assessment which the Murray-Darling Basin Authority failed to do. But the lucky committee has until April to produce that report. If the minister knew anything about regional Australia, he would know that from now until March or April is the peak period for people in the basin for harvesting, managing their crops, employing people, picking, packing and pruning—not to mention that there is also Christmas. How are these communities going to respond to another go at the economic impact assessment of the government taking away up to 45 per cent of their production capacity by the removal of their water? This is such a cynical exercise. We had hoped that this government had learned from the numbers of rural and regional communities that rejected them at the last election. They have not. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Murray for bringing this issue of the Murray-Darling Basin plan to the attention of the parliament so that we can debate it in the format of a matter of public importance. A lot has been said in the presentation we just heard from the member for Murray that is factually untrue. It gives me an option for a particular style of delivery, but I do not think we do the communities affected any service at all, given the current angst, by continuing the debate in that form. So I would like to go through, very calmly, where we are at and the facts as affected by the issues raised in this MPI.
The words of the MPI itself refer to the failure of the government to undertake a balanced and properly informed process for the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin plan. The process that is going on at the moment is being driven entirely by legislation. Those elements of the process that are being conducted by the authority are being entirely driven by the legislation. While there are parts of the article by the member for Wentworth in today’s Sydney Morning Herald that I take issue with, I certainly do not take issue with this statement:
An elaborate program of consultation was mandated by the act, and that is the exercise the authority is now undertaking.
In the terms of the MPI that is in front of us, let us acknowledge that an authority is acting independently. In fact, what it is doing at the moment is actually an extra layer of consultation beyond that which it is specifically required to do by the act. I have been speaking privately to a number of members on each side of the House. Many individuals and families in the communities that we are talking about here have had very deep issues of anxiety for some time. By all means, where anxiety or an action from the government gives rise to legitimate debate in those terms, have the argument and have the debate. But, please, when it is simply a scare campaign—and in some of the language that was used in that speech—
It’s not a scare campaign.
I will go through what was factually incorrect in that speech. People are quite right to want to defend their communities and quite right to want to argue for the best possible deal, but, when information is added that is factually untrue, for the particular circumstances that many of these communities are in, I do think it is unhelpful.
First of all, there was a claim that the report had been completed and the government sat on it in advance of the election. That is just factually untrue. I was handed a copy of the report for the first time two days before it was released. Briefings began in the final week before it was released. The authority, up until when briefings began, were holding regular meetings to determine what would be in the document. Given that that was when it was completed, which was well after the election, well after the 17 days following the election while we worked out who was going to be in government, it is simply untrue to claim that there was some disingenuous game going on to hide this report from people. It was not completed beforehand. The first time it was handed to a government minister, it was handed to me, and that was a couple of days before the release of the report.
Second, there was a claim that the Prime Minister had committed, before the election, to implement this report, to implement the guide. That is completely factually untrue.
Dr Stone interjecting
Mr Secker interjecting
I acknowledge the interjection that I should read the transcript. What the Prime Minister said was that we would as a government implement the Murray-Darling Basin Authority plan. That document is the final document that comes out at the end of next year after there has been an opportunity for ministerial intervention, to either ask them to reconsider aspects of it or specifically to demand that they change aspects of it. That is the document the Prime Minister quite rightly committed to implementing. There was an election commitment that was made about implementing the draft. That was made in the name of Senator Birmingham, Senator Joyce and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, from his indications in the House—
Rubbish! They never said anything about implementing the draft.
The words of the media release that I refer to are on a bit of paper that I can get, but I remember them by heart—they are that good. In response to the member for Barker, the words were that within two weeks they would release the draft and proceed with its implementation immediately. That was the commitment that the opposition made. Notwithstanding that, nobody on either side of the House, as I understand it, now has any interest in implementing the guide. I think that is common ground. We have a long process to go through now as we move towards the document which the government is committed to implementing, which is the final plan. As I say, the authority does not have sole control over what goes into that document. It only becomes the plan after the draft has been presented to ministerial council and I, as minister, have directed the authority either to reconsider certain matters or specifically to change elements of the report. At that point, it becomes the plan. That is the document that the Prime Minister guaranteed we would be committed to implementing. That is the commitment that the Prime Minister made during the election. That is what the government intends to do. I think it is important that we are able to provide that reassurance for communities so that they know exactly the extent to which the processes that must occur independently by the authority are part of a long period of statutory consultation but are not definitive in the different documents that get released on the way through.
You need to rule some things out pretty soon, Tony.
I do appreciate the comments that are being made about the levels of anxiety within communities.
I will now go to the claim that was made that the seeking of legal advice is just an excuse. I absolutely, in the strongest terms, assure you that that is not the case. Just work the issue back from first principles. I think there is a view that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has not adopted all three principles—of a healthy river, of acknowledging the importance of food production and of acknowledging the importance of strong regional communities—in a way that they are valued equally. If there is a view that they have not done that, but their argument for what they have done is based on their interpretation of the act, then it would be senseless for me to do what the member for Murray said and say, ‘I know you think that is what the statute says, but just get on with it and do something different.’ They quite rightly would say to me, ‘Minister, you’re asking us to act contrary to our interpretation of the act; we can’t do that.’
But, given that there is a legitimate argument that is going on at the moment in communities—and, from all reports, among members of both sides of parliament in this chamber—as to whether the interpretation that is being given to the act by the authority is right, then I believe the responsible way for me to deal with that is to get legal advice and to give the commitment, before I have even seen it, that I intend to make that advice available to the authority and to make it available generally. I think that is an important commitment in transparency, because a lot of people are now looking around and saying: ‘Do we need now to open up the Water Act? Do we need to go through a whole lot of processes which we all know full well would lead to further delay and further uncertainty?’ But people are coming to the debate with the best of intentions, because they are worried that issues that should be taken into account might not be taken into account.
We need to find out whether or not there is a basis for that entire discussion to happen. Whether we use the phrase ‘healthy river, food, strong communities’ or the phrase ‘triple-bottom line’, we need to determine whether that is reflected in the act, as I think most members of parliament believed it was when the Water Act was implemented. I think most members of parliament believed that. I have gone through the speeches of members of both sides of the House. I look forward to different opportunities of quoting various speeches that have been made by members, and in particular—let us face it—many members from the other side of the House. There are some quotes there about what people believed and why people supported the Water Act and about issues of structural adjustment that people were willing to take on.
I do not think any of us should walk away from this. If we go through this entire process and then we end up with no reform, from my meetings with irrigators and farmers groups and from conversations that I have been having for years and having with a particular intensity in recent days I tell you that no-one will thank us. No-one will thank us if we end up delaying an almost identical decision by a few years because we could not get the politics of it right.
Dr Stone interjecting
Member for Murray, I am approaching this debate with a level of a goodwill that is not always reflected in a MPI. I am in particular very mindful of the mental health challenges in many of these communities. I have always had a passion to make sure that we do not act in a way that adds to those. That is why I say that where there is a genuine policy difference by all means have the debate and have it vigorously. But where the only difference is which side of the parliament we happen to fall on, and we decide that we want to rev an issue up, we need to be careful. These sorts of issues can cause a high level of anxiety. Have the argument when the fear is based in the facts, but please do not present a guide to a draft as something that is more than it is.
I want to go to some points that were made by the member for Murray about the extent to which water buyback will be done in a strategic way. There was always set aside by the coalition an amount of money—it was in the order of $3 billion—dedicated to water buyback. Regarding the principle of how you do it, there are cases where it can be done in a smart way and strategically and cases where you have to go through your value-for-money propositions by using the water market. We have challenges with the water market. Most people recognise that it is a very immature market in many ways and there are issues about probity and the use of brokers. Irrigators have asked me to have a very close look at whether there might be extra levels of protection that we can bring into that market, and I am looking closely at that.
Additional to that, if you are buying from the market, and you decide that you want to buy from all the irrigators and a particular part of an irrigation region so that we have no risk of stranded assets and you do that at an inflated price through the water market, some of those people will take the government money at the inflated price and then—as is perfectly their right—buy the water back at a lower price. The water market allows you to do that. There are cases, though, where a full strategic approach can be used.
I have referred previously to the discussions that I had in a Trangie last Friday. The member representing Parkes would agree that it is a really good example of how a strategic buy can work. It can only be done with the full cooperation of the Irrigation Management Authority, because if the changes are going to be strategic, with some channels closed off, then it needs to be driven locally. That is the only way that that can be done sensibly. It cannot be done in every case. In these situations, you end up with smaller levels of gigalitres being made available than what you might get through a straight buy back. But you do get a high level of strategic value and you get very little change in terms of productivity. That is a project that I have looked closely at.
Subsequent to that meeting on Friday, I had the opportunity—because quite a few of them have been around here—to talk to a number of the other management authorities of irrigation schemes throughout the basin to talk about whether or not those sorts of approaches might work for them. They will not work in every area. But there is an extent to which you can do some strategic alignment in parts of the basin. But there is also an extent to which it is right and proper to take advantage of the water market and to approach it that way.
If anyone wants to say that it should be all infrastructure and no buy-out or all buy-out and no infrastructure, I will have arguments with them. It is always going to be a mix. We need to make sure that anything we spend is a sensible spend of money. We need to make sure that, simply because a project is put forward by a government or by an authority, we do not just grab it straight away without doing due diligence. So long as we are prudent and are mindful of those three objectives, we can get this right and have a healthy river system, strong food production and strong regional communities.
I rise today to support the member for Murray in this very important issue. In my short period of time in this place, this is clearly the most pressing and urgent issue and the issue of greatest concern to my electorate that I have ever covered. I want to go through the minister’s response. I will start with the last part first. On the visit to Trangie last week, I agreed that it was a good proposal. It is part of the $5.8 billion that was set aside for infrastructure. I only wish that we had more of those to look at, because it is a good one. It is a shame that it took so long to get there. I also might say that it is a shame that I was not aware of your visit, because I would have been more than happy to have taken part in that visit and might have been able to enlighten you on other things about my constituency that you might not be aware of.
This MPI is about the management of this process. The minister spoke about this being the first stage of a long process—well, possibly not the first stage, but a stage in a long process. There are large alarm bells ringing at the moment. Where the fear and anger in the basin stems from is people not knowing whether this is a process that is going to lead to a different result to that envisaged in the first place. The reason I say that is that last night in Senate estimates the CEO of the basin authority, when asked about the socioeconomic study and what effect that might have on the end result and the water needed for the environment—the 3,000 gigalitres minimum—the answer was, to paraphrase: ‘No. Basically we need that 3,000 gigalitres.’ That was in Senate estimates last night.
That indicates that, regardless of the consultation and the work that will be done in the future by a regional Australia committee, if the basin authority have decided they need to remove that level of water, what is the point? That is the concern of my communities. I acknowledge, Minister Burke, your answer in question time about getting legal advice on whether the authority are looking at this within the correct parameters, whether they have interpreted the act correctly. In hindsight, Minister, I think it would have been good to get that advice some time ago, because the level of anger and unrest currently in the basin is unpalatable. My feeling about it, with my limited legal background, is that the authority have misinterpreted the act, and if that is the case then we have seen a lot of unnecessary anger and upset.
The other part of the mismanagement I would like to talk about is what has happened previously. Just for the interest of the minister and others, the electorate of Parkes probably has the largest geographic area of any electorate within the Murray-Darling Basin. Within my electorate I have the McIntyre, the Border Rivers, the Barwon-Darling system, the Gwydir, the Namoi, the Castlereagh, the Macquarie and, since the redistribution, the Lachlan. Many people do not realise that there is an idea that the Murray-Darling Basin is a large, connected capillary system of water whereby if you do something here, something pops up over there. The case is that it is a lot different. Several of the rivers in my electorate do not actually make their way into the Darling and subsequently into the Murray. The Gwydir goes into the wetland and the Macquarie goes into the marsh area. Indeed, as we speak today, Minister, there are environmental flows going down the Gwydir. I know one farmer who has 5,000 acres of wheat under water from an environmental flow from a wetland. The premise and the visual images of people seeing empty river beds was from 10 years of drought rather than from mismanagement and overallocation to farmers. What concerns me is the way this matter has been handled.
Why did Mr Taylor in his initial press conference, if he were speaking about an ordered, factual process, mention so many times opening the mouth of the river? Why did he say, ‘We need to keep the mouth of the Murray River open?’ I surmise that is because he was giving a visual image to the larger metropolitan audience of ‘This is happening,’ whereas I suspect in your time in this portfolio, Minister, your understanding is that it is a far more complex issue than that and that actions that are taken in one part of the basin will necessarily affect others. Indeed, I believe we have seen actions, certainly in my part of the basin, that have had a political result rather than a physical result. For example, take the purchase of Toorale station at Bourke. Toorale Station employed 100 people. It accounted for 10 per cent of the revenue of the Bourke Shire Council and it was certainly a large part of the social and economic fabric of the Bourke community. The purchase of that water was not a large amount for a large amount of country. I spoke to one of the people previously associated with that property. Recently, I flew over it. It is a wasteland. Weeds are abounding, feral animals are all over it. Off the top of my head, I think it cost the federal and state governments $26 million to purchase that property. The purchase of Toorale Station was supposedly going to be of some benefit to the people of the Murray downstream. It had no benefit to them. At best, the water would have got to the Menindee Lakes and evaporated there. We had a huge flood in south-west Queensland at Christmas time that we are all aware of. Senator Joyce spoke about how many megalitres of water were going past his front doorstep every day. But only a percentage of that water got to the other end because, once that water leaves the river, it does not come back. So the idea that large amounts of environmental water are going to solve all the problems is not right. It will not happen. You physically cannot get that water down the river because the nature of the river is such that, once the water leaves, it will not come back.
Another large purchase made by Minister Wong was the purchase of Twynam. Part of that purchase was Collymongle Station at Collarenebri, clearly the largest employer for that town. In excess of 100 people worked at Collymongle Station in its heyday. It has magnificent infrastructure. It is a showplace. It has its own cotton gin. It is a magnificent place. The town of Collarenebri will never recover. I would like Minister Burke, and even Minister Macklin, to come with me to Collarenebri and see the devastating effects of a water purchase, which has already happened, on a town that will not recover. We have already had a lot of this pain through drought and if it is environmental flows that we are after, without any further activity, the rivers are awash in my electorate. The member for New England will go crook because the dam is actually in his electorate, but I use the water. Pindari Dam is at 100 per cent. I think Copeton is currently in excess of 30 per cent. It is a huge storage. Keepit is, I think, at 60 per cent capacity. Burrendong is at 100 per cent. That is the water that feeds the Macquarie and the Macquarie Marshes. Without any further pain, we are already getting environmental flows down the river. The Macquarie Marshes are currently brimming. Indeed, I had a phone call from a farmer this week who was concerned about erosion because of the amount of water that is now coming out of a dam, going across his property, because the marshes are full of water. This result affects people. I am terribly concerned that the debate we are having is about garnering Greens preferences from city voters who, with the best of intentions—I am not directing this at you, Minister; I am talking about the process in general—want to save an environment without having any understanding of the effects on the communities. (Time expired)
I also would thank the member for Murray for bringing forward this matter of public importance today. Like the minister, I wish to use it as an occasion to invite the opposition to reflect on how this debate about a matter which is undoubtedly of national importance is to be conducted. By that I am referring to the need for the bipartisan spirit that was reflected in the legislation that was passed by the Howard government, by the Liberal Party and the National Party when last in government, in 2007. I invite the opposition to reflect on how that bipartisanship brought to bear on an issue of national importance can now be recreated. It has been sorely lacking in the last few days since the release by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority of the Guide to the proposed Basin Planwhich is what it is.
We have had all sorts of what appear to be wilful misreadings of the legislation that was passed by the Howard government and, I regret to say, a great deal of fearmongering, a great deal of misreading or misrepresentation of what this guide to the proposed plan actually is, and indeed the spreading of misinformation about the process. This MPI helpfully raises the process for implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin plan and it is worth bearing in mind just how we came to be in the present situation where, on 8 October, this guide to the proposed plan was released by the authority.
I take it that very many factual matters about the environmental state of the Murray-Darling Basin, about the preciousness of the basin as one of our most important environmental assets and about the status of the basin as the food bowl for the nation are simply beyond question. They are not in dispute between the major parties in this country. I take it as a given that there has been poor management and the lack of a national plan—certainly up to the passage of the legislation in 2007—and I take it as a given that the health of the basin reached a critical point over the past decade, that there has been devastation of precious wetlands, that many of our irrigators went out of business, that we have had algal blooms and acid sulphate soils that make much of the water unusable to farmers and destructive to the environment and that the way in which we have been sharing water in the Murray-Darling Basin is not working to support the long-term viability of rivers or of rural communities.
And we’ve had the worst drought on record for the last 10 years.
The member for Murray mentions the fact—and everybody in all of the basin communities is aware of it—that we have had the worst drought in recorded Australian history over the last 10 years, and that dreadful drought has of course massively reduced the availability of water to irrigators throughout the basin. Indeed, it has reduced the availability of water to irrigators throughout the basin to a far greater degree than any of the proposed reductions that are mentioned in the guide to the proposed plan that is presently under consideration in communities.
Of course there is concern in the basin communities. Of course there is concern about any proposal which might see, through governmental action, a reduction in water allocations, just as in those same communities—and this was referred to by the member for Parkes, representing his communities—there has been concern about the lack of water that has been caused through the recent years of drought. I take all of these environmental concerns and indeed all of the concerns about continued viability of basin communities to be a given and, indeed, as having led to the passage of the legislation which established the process which is now being carried out.
We have a proposed plan that is being prepared by an independent authority. It is not a proposal from the government; it is a proposal from an independent authority. The way in which the authority is going about this process—a process envisaged by the legislation passed by the Liberal and National parties when in government—will provide an additional opportunity for consultation and engagement. It is actually in addition to the statutory process and is going to inform the drafting of the proposed plan.
Public community consultations for the guide will run until mid-November. There are over 12 months to run in this consultation before the minister is presented with the plan at the end of 2011. We have had an announcement from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority that it will commission work on the socioeconomic impacts of possible sustainable diversion limits, and that work is scheduled to be completed in March 2011. We have had the commissioning of the parliamentary inquiry, which is going to be chaired by the member for New England, and that of course is an inquiry that will be able to seek input from regional and small towns throughout the basin. It will have a strong focus on understanding the legitimate concerns that everybody in these communities have about proposed changes to water allocations. It is appropriate that the member for New England, whose community is in the basin, is chairing this particular parliamentary inquiry.
To go back to the process which is the one that is now in train, the authority will release its proposed basin plan next year. I repeat: the legislation that was supported by Labor in opposition and passed by the Liberal and National parties in government provides for 16 weeks of consultation following the release of the proposed basin plan next year, and the process continues. Every single one of these steps is an opportunity for everybody affected—for everybody in this place, for everybody throughout the Australian community and particularly for everybody in basin communities—to comment on and to participate in what will come to be the final plan.
The next step is for the authority to present a final plan to the ministerial council, which includes representatives from each of the basin states, and that ministerial council will then consider the proposed plan. At that point, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities can ask the authority to reconsider issues or make some changes. The minister then is required to sign off on the final plan. But that is not the end of the process. As the minister made clear in question time earlier this week, after signing off on the plan the minister tables it in the parliament, where of course it is a disallowable instrument—it may be disallowed by either house. In order to become the final plan for the Murray-Darling Basin, it needs to be signed off—and it will certainly be after debate—by both houses of this parliament.
It is hard to imagine a process more carefully designed—and this is why Labor supported it in opposition—to give every possible opportunity to basin communities and everybody throughout Australia who is concerned, as we must be, about the environmental sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin and the continued economic viability of basin communities. It would be hard to imagine a process that gives more opportunity for consultation, more opportunity for participation and more opportunity to ensure an end to what the member for Murray, speaking not on the matter of public importance but just before question time on the address-in-reply when I happened to be here at the table, referred to as ‘governance failure for decades’. I take that to be an accusation she levels not only at Labor governments of the past but also at Liberal-National party governments of the past.
Mainly.
Mainly perhaps, but that is only because there have regrettably been more Liberal-National Party governments over the last century than Labor governments. This is what we are dealing with. In less than a century, water extraction from the rivers in the basin has increased by 500 per cent and the governance failures are sought to be overcome by the legislation that establishes the framework. I repeat the call that I started with. I call on members of the opposition not to engage in a wilful misunderstanding of this process, not to engage in hysteria and not to engage in misinformation, because these are complex policy questions which are best resolved in a measured way.
I note at the outset that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency are asking for bipartisanship from our side of politics on the basis that the Labor Party have always been bipartisan on this issue. I recollect otherwise. In fact, I asked the Parliamentary Library to find out how the vote went on the original legislation. On 14 August 2007, when the Labor Party were in opposition, when it came to the vote on the question ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’—in other words, that the wording of the motion goes back to its original form—the Labor Party voted in the negative. There were 73 ayes and 52 noes. Interestingly enough, the current environment minister was absent from that vote, so he may have been a bit lucky on that occasion. But I think it is a bit disingenuous of the government to now ask for total bipartisanship and understanding from us when they did not do the same for us in the first place. So let us first get out of the way the fallacy that Labor have been bipartisan on this issue.
I come from South Australia, and I have always known that there is a need for a sustainable river system. In fact, probably before the minister was born we in South Australia started doing the work to make the river system more efficient. When man landed on the moon, we in South Australia were putting pipes in so that we would not rely on channels. We started this over 40 years ago. In South Australia we have become world leaders in water use efficiency—our efficiency is up to 98 or 99 per cent, which is world-class standard—and we have achieved that because we have worked on it for over 40 years. We realised long before anyone else in Australia that we needed to replumb the system, so that is what we did. One of my New South Wales colleagues was actually quite shocked that under the plan we in South Australia have been treated exactly the same as the other states—that is, we face a 26 to 37 per cent cut depending on whether we are required to return 3,000 or 4,000 gigalitres to the system, according to the basin plan report. I will come back to that figure later.
In South Australia, we certainly recognise that requirement, but in being treated the same as the other states we think we have been treated unfairly. It is not just me who thinks we are being treated unfairly; the Labor member for Makin in a speech to parliament yesterday said exactly the same thing. I refer members to that speech, because I think it was quite measured and sensible. The Labor Premier of South Australia also believes we have been treated unfairly, as does Senator Nick Xenophon. I think that is a legitimate argument, because we in South Australia will have no more capacity to replumb to get those cuts. We have already done it, Minister, so we have not got that capacity, and we have not been rewarded for the more than 40 years of good work we have done in our state. I accept that we do need a sustainable river system, but under the Howard plan we purposely allocated twice as much for infrastructure as we did for buybacks, and it seems to me that the lazy politician’s answer of ‘Just buy back; spend the money’ is what the previous government did during their term. I hope they change their mind on this, because that is not the only answer. You will not have a balance if you do not spend twice as much money on infrastructure as you do on buybacks so that we can use our water better to get more crop per drop. We need a greater focus on replumbing the system.
We in South Australia do not care if that money is spent in Victoria, New South Wales or indeed Queensland or the ACT, because we know we will be better off with a system which does not recognise state boundaries. We in South Australia will be better off for it, so we think that is the way we need to go. We were very disappointed because we set aside $400 million or so for the Menindee Lakes reconstruction. I believe Labor promised that before the 2007 election and it has not happened. Unfortunately, we are now in the situation where it is pretty hard to do those works under nine meters of water. It is going to be a lot more costly, so we missed an opportunity. We need to make sure that we spend the money on infrastructure.
I also want to come back to this figure of 3,000 or 4,000 gigalitres. There is a concern out there because people have not been convinced by the science or seen the scientific background to say that the need is for 3,000, 4,000 or 7,600 gigalitres. That may well be the case—I do not know. I have not seen the scientific knowledge that has been put down as the basis of the reason why we have to go for those figures. I very well remember six or seven years ago when the Murray-Darling Basin Commission was promoting 1,500 gigalitres—not 3,000, not 4,000, not 7,600 but 1,500. In fact, the then executive officer of the Murray-Darling commission said we ‘probably could not handle any more than that right now’. We have to make sure we get the science right. I also remember six or seven years ago when the Wentworth Group were talking about 1,500 gigalitres. It is very important that we get this figure right, because there are a lot of communities out there scared that they are going to be decimated—and I accept what the minister is saying, that it is only a guide to a plan, but people are concerned about their futures and they are rightly emotional at the moment. That is the thing that we have to deal with, because every member in the Murray-Darling Basin—well, there are no Labor members in the Murray-Darling Basin. I was very disappointed when the new minister got up. You gave a contribution which, as usual, was reasonably sane and sensible but you only had eight members from the government behind you.
Really? I’ll talk to the whip about that.
I think you should talk to the whip about that one because it is unfortunate, but it shows that it is not really an issue for Labor. It might be for the minister, but it does not seem to be in the ethos of the Labor Party, unless you are from South Australia, to believe that we have to actually do something about the Murray-Darling Basin.
Dr Stone interjecting
I went to the meetings. Of course, like anyone, you get attacked: ‘What are you doing about it?’ But I will try to stay sane and rational about the whole basin plan. I know it is a tough decision. I know these are tough reforms, but we cannot stop. But we do have to take into account the social and economic results of any possible changes.
I have to say I was very disappointed to learn in Senate estimates yesterday that apparently consideration was not given to those issues until the day that the report was released. I think that is appalling, because section 20 of the act clearly says they have to take account of the socioeconomic problems that may result from this. So I am really concerned that we have got this far and we do not have all the information. I am not going to blame Rob Freeman or Mike Taylor. I think they are very good public servants and I know they are doing their best under pretty tough conditions, and I know they are going out there and talking to people. There is a lot of anger and they are dealing with it as best they can. But we need to have all that information so we can make rational decisions about whether we need 1,500, 3,000 or 4,000 gigs returned to the river and whether we can spend a lot more on infrastructure, which was the original plan of the Howard government—the $10 billion plan. That was on the basis that there would be the same amount of food produced because you could produce it with less water. That was the basis: that the gigalitres you lose in buybacks is returned to the growers. That was a very sensible plan. I still believe it is the best plan and I hope the government is still committed to it. (Time expired)
It was interesting to hear the member for Barker talking about the history of this issue and the idea of the 1,500 gigalitres as recommended by the science. I can remember when I was shadow environment minister and Simon Crean was Leader of the Opposition and Labor in fact adopted a policy that we should see—over the course of a decade, let me say—1,500 gigalitres returned to the Murray-Darling Basin based on the scientific evidence of that time. It is regrettable, I think, that we did not see action taken at that time to return those 1,500 gigalitres to the Murray-Darling Basin. Indeed, the previous government talked about 500 gigalitres as the first step, but that largely did not eventuate either. It seems to me that as a result of that inaction the position has deteriorated in the meantime.
Let me also observe at the outset that one thing that will strike anyone listening to the Murray-Darling debate is the idea that the silver bullet to solve the population problems of Australia’s big cities—Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane—is to move people to rural and regional Australia. It is an idea that does not really stand up to scrutiny. On the one hand, we have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority saying that the environment has not had sufficient environmental water for decades, leading to environmental decline which now threatens the economy of the basin—the economic and social viability of many industries—and on the other hand we have members opposite saying that action to put water back into the Murray-Darling will lead to the depopulation of rural communities. If you think about these issues at all, it becomes clear that the Murray-Darling region is already stressed and in no position to absorb population from the capital cities.
Nearly 40 years ago, Peter Howson, the then environment minister in the Liberal-Country Party government of William McMahon, presented a report to cabinet about the declining health of the Murray-Darling and the need for action to protect it. Forty years on and we still have those opposite crying, ‘It’s too soon; we need more time.’ They always cry out for more consultation. Indeed there will be much more consultation concerning these matters—as the minister and the parliamentary secretary have pointed out—but the truth is that this problem has been well known and well documented for the past 40 years and those opposite had an abundance of consultation during their 11½ years in government. What we never got from those opposite was any action to protect the river system or anything to address the problem.
If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, consultation is the last refuge of the policy bereft. Those opposite have been calling for more consultation because, frankly, they have nothing. They are clueless on this matter. State conservative governments created the problem years ago, handing out licences to extract water from the Murray-Darling which were simply unsustainable. And, having created this problem, they are now bereft of any way to solve it. Having no answers of their own, they run interference on the government’s attempts to solve a problem which they have created. It has been said that:
Our greatest waterway, the Murray-Darling Basin, is under immense strain …
… … …
It is heartbreaking to read weekly stories about the Murray’s plight: water levels falling below the end of irrigation pumping pipes, the risk posed by rising salinity and acidity …
… … …
The clock is ticking on the opportunity to ensure the environmental fruits and economic benefits of the Murray-Darling Basin are not lost or endangered forever.
and that:
Australia was one of the first signatories to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Significance, but anyone could be forgiven for thinking our governments have not done absolutely everything in their power to protect our own ecosystems. What is preventing the government buying back more water licences?
I have to confess that none of the comments I have just made are original to me, though I would cheerfully associate myself with them. They are in fact statements made by the South Australian Liberal Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham is an intelligent man and a South Australian. I have never come across a South Australian who was not acutely aware of the risks facing the Murray River. Indeed, Senator Birmingham’s comments must have found favour with the Leader of the Opposition for he is now the opposition spokesman on the Murray-Darling. Some of his other observations, which I also commend to the House’s attention, are that:
The upstream states are extracting more water than can rightly be defended …
and that:
Increased water extractions over decades left the Murray-Darling system critically stressed …
… … …
The Murray-Darling needs a national plan for water use, delivered by an independent national authority, with the teeth to act.
The House should also remember, when we are debating an opposition motion attacking the government for endeavouring to return water to the Murray-Darling, that the Leader of the Opposition himself, in one of his first acts as opposition leader, described the Murray-Darling as the nation’s biggest environmental problem and proposed a referendum to put responsibility for the Murray-Darling in the hands of the national government. To my way of thinking that is a reasonable proposition, but it is very hard to square with what opposition members are saying here this afternoon. They now choose to ignore the abundant evidence of the seriousness of the Murray-Darling’s environmental problems.
Just last summer, yet another outbreak of toxic algae crippled the health of the Murray-Darling. In towns like Yarrawonga in Victoria, people were advised to avoid contact with the river or risk gastroenteritis and eye and ear complaints. We know from Australia’s National Dryland Salinity Program that, within 50 years, the water of the Murrumbidgee, Darling and Murray rivers may be too saline to irrigate most crops and that salinity in the lower Murray is projected to rise by 50 per cent—and more than 100 per cent in many smaller rivers—in the coming 50 years.
In 2001 we learned that, if things go on the way they are, Adelaide’s water will not meet World Health Organisation guidelines on two days out of five by 2020. I know some people think that Adelaide’s water is already pretty much undrinkable. We know that 16 of the basin’s 35 native fish species are now listed as threatened. Whether it is salinity, algal blooms, dying river red gums, endangered fish species like the trout cod or the Coorong, the Macquarie Marshes turning into basket cases, or the mouth of the Murray kept open by dredging, symptomatic of a system on life support, everything points to an unsustainable state of affairs, where inaction is not an option.
This is not just a question of the environment. A healthy river system is essential to support agriculture and drinking water. As the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has said:
The real possibility of environmental failure now threatens the long-term economic and social viability of many industries and the economic, social and cultural strength of many communities … the nation risks irretrievably damaging the attributes of the Basin that enable it to be so productive.
In short, we risk killing the goose that lays the golden egg. This is not a choice between irrigators and the environment. Either we protect the river or we kill the goose that lays the golden egg. There are no jobs from a dead river. It has been said that we are reaching a tipping point. If we keep flogging the horse, the horse will die and we will be left in the lurch.
The Murray-Darling river system is like a bridge which used to carry cars but in recent years has started carrying B-double trucks, and is starting to crack and subside. In 1920, the amount of surface water diverted for consumptive use was about 2,000 gigalitres per year. By the 1990s the number had risen to 11,000 gigalitres per year—a more than fivefold increase. If a bridge is starting to crack and subside, you do not say to the B-double trucks, ‘Because we’ve let you cross this bridge until now, we’re going to keep on letting you do this and take the gamble that the bridge won’t collapse completely, becoming useless to all traffic.’ The responsible thing is to say, ‘We might have made a mistake.’ You fix the bridge and you work out what weight of traffic it can withstand. It is the same with the Murray-Darling. You need to reduce the amount of water being extracted from the river, reduce the load it is expected to bear and work out what load it can sustain without collapsing.
Finally, I want to say that I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks made by the member for New England, both about the issue of the Murray-Darling and about the idea of tackling climate change by storing carbon in the soil. I think it might be possible to link those ideas. There are clearly significant sums of money involved in both restoring the Murray-Darling to health and in tackling climate change and I have no in-principle objection to industry paying farmers, or taxpayers paying farmers, for their help in tackling these problems on the proviso that the benefits are real and accrue to the environment—paying landowners to look after the land by planting mallee which stores a lot of carbon, or other native vegetation which tackles salinity, can make sense. We need to look after our rivers, our soils, our native vegetation and our wildlife much better than we did in the last century. I hope we are now going down that path. (Time expired)
There can be no more important issue of public importance, when one represents Murray-Darling Basin communities, than the subject we are discussing now. Whilst I was assured by the earlier contributions from the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the member for Isaacs, I do have to make two specific rebuttals in response to other contributions. First, though, I have to rebut the contribution the member for Wills has just made. His message may be electorally favourable in a constituency like Wills, but it is contrary to popular opinion in my electorate. I invite Kelvin to come up, like many Melbourne visitors do, to my place. They arrive and they say: ‘Oh, we were told the river was dead. We were told it was full of salt.’
I want to back up what the member for Barker said in his contribution, and it is what I said in this place on Monday. I commend the minister to read the contribution I made. The irrigators that we represent resent the lack of credit given to them for the progress that has been made. The truth is contrary to the assertion of the member for Wills about the last 30 years. In fact, I launched my consulting engineering practice on the back of what has probably been one of the most significant solutions to the problems: investment in infrastructure. The principle of irrigation that we learnt from the Israelis was ‘less water, more often’, but to deliver an outcome like that you need modern infrastructure. You need a system that can supply irrigation comparable with that of the urban supply we get to our homes and suburbs, where you switch it on. You do not have to ring up and order it. If the member for Wills is simply saying, ‘We are frustrated the process has taken too long,’ I will accept that, but if he is accusing former governments, no matter what their colour, of not doing something about this huge challenge then that is untrue. As I said on Monday, I was born and raised in the soldier settlement district of Red Cliffs and I remember the fact that as a young fellow my relatives could not spray their citrus crop in the daytime because the high salinity destroyed the leaves in the crop. They had to spray in the evening. Well, from there we have moved on to under vine, under tree and even trickle irrigation. This is the kind of thing I am currently hearing from my irrigators.
The member for Isaacs made the accusation that those of us who represent these communities are scaremongering. Frankly, I have been spending more time than I have in the last eight or nine years—and I mentioned this to the minister before this debate started—trying to keep them calm. I am encouraged by the remarks the minister has made about the emotional stress that every one of us representing these communities is currently confronted with. To be frank about it, I am dreading the Mildura meeting on Wednesday because what the communities want to express is their frustration. They are not hearing the assurance that we have heard in the last few days at the table—that this is a concept, a guide. We are being slapped around a little bit about the ‘this is where we want to pitch to’. But I go back to my speech on Monday, Minister, where I asked the House to consider our ancient history. What the Romans did the first time they built a fortified city was secure their water supply. Now I know I am making a principle related to my engineering background here, but it is true. From that water supply they were able to maintain their sanitary disposal processes. So they secured their water supply but not in the way that we do it in the Murray-Darling Basin. They used sealed channels. They used engineering principles—aqueducts and tunnels through hills—and they stored water in enclosed systems.
When I first arrived in this place I was speaking on, and moving private members’ resolutions about, the risk that climate change was having on our community. I was the first person to speak about it back in 1993-94, and I was ridiculed. So for me to be referred to, as has happened, as a climate change sceptic is completely unfair. I am interested in this subject—in outcomes that secure the future environmental viability of our rivers. I live on the river, and so do my communities, and we have seen huge progress. Irrigators not do not have to make a decision on when they irrigate based on salinity. They have sacrificed a lot of their allocations to achieve that, and all they are asking for is some credit for that.
Two examples of the frustration I have experienced in the last two or three years relate to two proposals. One of them is the Wakool irrigators who in bulk have decided they want to go back to broadacre agriculture and hand in their licences for compensation. There is 40 gigalitres in the Wakool region, but have they been able to bring the former minister and the department along with the concept? Do you think they are worried about what happens to the person who does not want to sell their water station? They have agreed, and it has taken a lot of emotional community consultation to agree, as a whole, to sell their water entirely. Wakool is in the region of the member for Farrer. It is very close to where I live and many of those irrigators out there are old clients of mine, so I have stayed close to that suggestion. But it still has not happened.
In my speech on Monday I also mentioned the Wimmera irrigators. Their problem is with the piping of the Wimmera-Mallee and the constraints of the last eight years in not having water. They have made their own decision—all of them—to sell their water. There is only one purchaser, and that is the Australian government. There is no other purchaser. So they offered a first quote, asking for $1,600 a megalitre—and there is 30,000 megalitres there. They were told by the departmental representative that it was not value for money. So they reduced their bid to $1,100 and were told that was not value for money. They have had meetings where they are asking, ‘Do we have to go lower?’
That is not fair, Minister, and I would like to find a way for your intervention into that, separate to the issue that this report has created, because, when we built the Wimmera Mallee pipeline as a community, with the local community funding a third of it, the Commonwealth government funding a third of it and the state government funding a third of it—a good model—we all decided that it was worthwhile investing, in some stages, between $7,000 and $9,000 a megalitre. That is how much value we as a community put on water. It is different to the Murray system; it is not high security. The benefits of that are currently being realised. With an extremely stressed river in the Wimmera, we now have water going to Lake Hindmarsh, and the Glenelg is a beneficiary as well—wonderful environmental outcomes. Government members accuse us on this side of scaremongering and not wanting to be part of it, but we have history behind us indicating that we are supporting the intention.
The member for Barker has made suggestions asking how realistic the target is. We can massage that, but I want the government—particularly you, Minister—to understand the traumatic state of mind for my irrigators, particularly in horticulture and particularly associated with Sunraysia at Mildura. I cannot get leave to attend the meeting. I hope my growers will be assured that the best place for me to be is here on my feet convincing you, because I need you, Minister, to develop a favourable outcome to this. Visit Sunraysia—and I invite the member for Wills to come up to Sunraysia. It breaks my heart, as someone who as a young fellow grew up in the region and went away for a university education, to drive around that district now and see dead vines and dead citrus trees. I do not want to see any more of that. I want to see them delivered an efficient supply scheme at a price that they can afford and for them not to be asked to contribute too much to the value of that infrastructure.
We have achieved that at Robinvale so far. I am pretty proud about that. It is a Second World War soldier settlement district. We have achieved it at Woorinen, which is closer to Swan Hill—a First World War soldier settlement. And I continue to put the argument that it was governments of those days that created these irrigation districts, for the right reasons, to give people returning from war a future, and I think it is right now for governments, after over 100 years, to rehabilitate the system and give them a modern supply system, which our competitors overseas have. In my days as a consulting engineer I used to host visits from the Israelis, who said, ‘In our country we cannot waste water like this,’ and we used their irrigation technology. That is all we are asking for: some recognition as irrigators in that region of the pain we have already endured. And we are looking for assurances that the government—particularly you, Minister—is going to get this one right.
The discussion has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Commission of Inquiry into the Building the Education Revolution Program Bill 2010;Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010;Carer Recognition Bill 2010;Corporations Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2010;Defence Legislation Amendment (Security of Defence Premises) Bill 2010; andFisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010.
Question agreed to.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
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.
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 on the proposed address-in-reply to the speech of Her Excellency the Governor-General—
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, express our loyalty to the Sovereign, and thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to the Parliament—
on motion by Ms O’Neill:
That the Address be agreed to.
To continue, it is extraordinary that this new minority Labor government began making special abeyances to regional Australia and yet has just facilitated the announcement of the guide to the Murray-Darling Basin plan, which is to precede the draft, which is in turn to precede the final water plan, but the guide is hopelessly inadequate. It has caused absolute despair and profound disappointment among all those looking for a sound ecological and economic and social outcome. We need a win-win outcome to improve the environment and sustain the food producing communities, who are also in fact the managers of the environment in the basin.
In order to understand the seriousness of Labor’s failure to show leadership right now to build or sustain the confidence of the basin during this plan development, it is important to look at the scale and importance of the Murray-Darling Basin for all Australians. The basin covers one-seventh of our continent and is one of the largest and driest catchments in the world. It is home for over 2.1 million people but another 1.3 million also depend on its water outside the basin. Most of those are in Adelaide. The basin includes 16 internationally recognised Ramsar listed wetlands and these wetlands cover 6,300 square kilometres.
The basin accounts for 20 per cent of Australia’s total agricultural land and has 40 per cent of its farms. These farms produce 40 per cent of the gross value of all of our agricultural production. The basin is in fact, not just by reputation, the food bowl of Australia, growing most of our cotton and rice but 58 per cent of all orchard trees, 68 per cent of all the tomatoes, 38 per cent of all the onions, 48 per cent of all of the melons, 90 per cent of all the almonds, 95 per cent of all the oranges, 54 per cent of all the apples and 90 per cent of all the pears—and remember this is from only 14 per cent of Australia’s land mass, and in one of the driest catchments in the world. Our dairy production is also extraordinary.
One-third of all people working in manufacturing in the basin are employed in food processing, and this adds up to over 30,000 people, and guess what: the unions representing those people and taking their fees have so far been totally silent on the job losses that will proceed if this plan goes ahead. In 2006, 920,000 people were employed in the basin, with an increase in that employment of 8.3 per cent last year, and 98,000 people were employed in agriculture in the basin, producing $15 billion worth of produce for the nation’s economy. That included $9 billion worth of exports.
As I said in my earlier remarks, since colonisation the basin has been divided between different jurisdictions with different water laws and property rights to water. Since Federation there have been competing interests in access to water in the basin. We understood that, and that is why the coalition when in government addressed the governance failure across the basin and determined that we should have a sustainable future. We must indeed have a sustainable future which takes on board a triple-bottom-line approach. So a new basin water authority was to be formed that would work in the interests of sustaining both the ecosystems and the human communities making a home in the basin, producing most of the country’s food and fibre.
In 2004 COAG signed the National Water Initiative, which was to achieve water reform through an agreed, cohesive national approach. No-one said this would be easy. But no-one imagined that the task, left to a Labor government, would degenerate into a farce, destroying the expectations of people in and out of the basin that at last we would have an expert plan, based on best science, that would deliver a win-win outcome. No-one wanted to see Labor’s massive failure, least of all the 3½ million people dependent on the basin. But after three years and millions of dollars spent, last week we saw the Murray-Darling Basin Authority deliver such a deeply flawed guide, mostly ignoring socioeconomic impacts, that the basin community has been left angry and despairing. We know investment decisions are now being delayed, we know that banks are reconsidering the value of their lending portfolio, we know that employment is being already reconsidered and we know that more students about to graduate across the basin are saying there is just no point them considering employment in the future in natural resource management or agriculture because the basin, on the basis of this guide, just has no future.
There seems to be no recognition in the MDB guide that environmental water can be used many times over. There is just a bald figure of between 3,000 and 7,600 gigalitres to be clawed back from so-called willing sellers amongst the irrigators. But it is more complex than that, and there can be and must be a win-win scenario. For example, you can improve the quality of water in a river by an environmental flow. This same flow can then be put into a red gum forest as a flood and, finally, it can inundate a wetland. What we have seen in the basin plan that has been offered is environmental water calculation at the crudest—and it is the least scientific.
Apparently only some of the environmental water already quarantined for the basin is to be counted in the final analysis. The authority seems to have ignored technology or management processes that can and are being used now to manage environmental water into wetlands, billabongs, tributaries and rivers. We have just heard a contribution from the member for Wills, who accused the coalition of not wanting an environmental outcome from this plan. He seemed to think that all we want is the status quo. He forgot that there has been a drought and, like so many, he seems to be trying to pitch irrigators against greenies in the city. This is a crude and naive approach and one that delivers absolutely no benefit to anybody except perhaps those with the political lusts who want green preferences in the next state election.
We must have technology managing environmental flows and this involves pumps, regulators, channels and pipes. This is already the case in places like the Barmah Forest and Kerang Lakes. It is not just a matter of naming a number of gigalitres and clawing that water back from so-called willing sellers, who are in fact those leant on the most by lenders, and then saying the job is done. We have to ensure that every gigalitre is delivered efficiently at the right time of the year to the environment for the health of the ecosystem to survive. It has to be released at the right volume and at the right temperature. The water has to be of the right quality and the environmental water must be held for the right duration to ensure successful fish and bird reproduction and vegetation renewal. Failure to do the right thing means biodiversity loss and weed inundation and a serious revisiting of the worst of the drought impacts in the last 10 years. The ecosystem needs to be managed like a well-run estate. It is not just a case of throwing a few gigalitres of water down a river or into a lake when the cameras are rolling or a minister deigns to visit.
Unfortunately there have been some disastrous environmental waterings in the basin, which point to the fact that this cannot be about volumes alone. We need to have a skilled and committed state public service to march alongside our expert farm and food producers so that the outcome at the end of the day is as good as it has to be. We might be making some metropolitan based greenies happy if we talk simply about gigalitre volumes, but it does not guarantee a sustainable ecosystem at the end of the day. Environmental water must be carefully managed with funds committed to structures and measures to ensure the environmental flow actually improves the conditions of the ecosystems. We have to make sure that the farmers and other primary producers who live alongside and around the tributaries, the wetlands and the billabongs are also sufficiently viable through their own hard work so that they can assist, as they always have done, in monitoring, managing and ensuring the ecosystems stay in good health. This is not a them-and-us situation, as we have already seen the member for Wills try to push in his contribution a minute ago.
Let me give you an example of how locals care and often have to try to bring about some better environmental outcome when the public servants turn their backs. At the height of summer last year locals living adjacent to the great Barmah Forest, the world’s biggest red gum forest, with Ramsar listed wetlands and endangered species, were appalled to see that some people had smashed four river regulators, releasing some 850 megalitres of water into the forest. This was over a few days of 40 degree heat. The spill spread 30 kilometres through the forest and into wetlands, particularly into a five-kilometre wide stream triggering a breeding cycle for hundreds of thousands of water birds. Given the extreme temperatures and the shallowness of the water we soon had a black water event, all the fledglings died and the vegetation was killed. These farmers reported the disaster to me. I could not understand why it had not reached the media, nor why the state agencies were not doing something to try to find the culprits and to make sure it never happened again. This tragic event was only made public when I took it to the media and insisted that it be officially investigated. But no-one was ever charged, and I am not sure if any official investigation ever did take place. Yet, just months before, farmers who had spilled water into a recreational lake near Kerang were pursued relentlessly through Goulburn-Murray Water, the police and the state’s Department of Sustainability and Environment. They were named and shamed as water thieves and vandals, having put some water into the lake so that they could do some water skiing. There had been no environmental damage, but it seems there are different outcomes for different suspects. The local farmers were outraged by the official failures and by the waste of life, biodiversity and water in the Barmah Forest because they cared deeply about the state of that ecosystem. They have been its custodians for generations and they knew that a deliberate wetting of the forest at that time of the year would have catastrophic consequences, and of course it did.
The authority’s guide that is on the table now might please the metro based greenies in that it simply names some very big numbers. But those who really care know that it fails to take a valley-by-valley approach; it fails to ensure that the ecosystem, in all of its diversity, is sustained while they continue to live as food producers contributing to the nation and, internationally, to the food security of the world.
So timid or uncertain was the Murray-Darling Basin Authority about the guide to the plan they released, that they had a huge range of water reductions for potential use—from 3,000 gigalitres to 7,600 gigalitres, which is a huge 250 per cent difference from the highest to the lowest option. Then there was the ABARE-BRS client report commissioned by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which was released just a few weeks ago, which had a stab at modelling the socioeconomic impacts of a 3,500-gigalitre reduction. They conceded that there was some problem with the models they used, which only suggested a reduction of 1.3 per cent in gross regional product. They were worried about their efficacy and suggested you look a little harder.
We were not surprised at all when the chairman of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Mr Michael Taylor, at the first meeting at Shepparton—only one working day after the release of the 220-page report—immediately, without question, agreed with the distressed farmer in the audience: ‘Oh no,’ he said, ‘we know that the 800 job loss calculation in the report is wrong. We know that there are substantially bigger socioeconomic impacts. We think the model was wrong. We think it took a net cross-basin approach. Yes, we know it’s wrong. Our data is not up to it. But, of course, we had a problem with the legislation.’
I do not think there is any problem with the legislation, and I certainly think Minister Burke is wasting our time by even debating that issue. You just have to read sections 20 and 22 to see that it quite categorically spells out that there must be in the basin plan consideration that ‘optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes’. That is a quote from section 20(d). It also says that the authority and the minister must, in exercising their powers and performing their functions under this division (b), act on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge and socioeconomic analysis. It goes on and on referring to what should be in the report mandated in the final plan, which includes the social and economic circumstances of basin communities dependent on the basin water resources.
It is just a red herring—a furphy, a time waster—for us to now say that the authority did not deal with the economic impacts because it did not think it was allowed to. How come we now have the basin authority saying, ‘We’ll rush out now and do some socioeconomic analysis work, and we’ll have it done by March, and yes, it parallels the panicked response of the minister, who said that we’ll also get a parliamentary committee to do that missing socioeconomic analysis work; they have a few more weeks to get their report in in April’?
This is extraordinary. We really have to get the minister out there in the basin reassuring our communities that what they read in the plan is not necessarily government policy, despite what Prime Minister Gillard said before the election, and that the government really does understand that the guide is an inadequate and flawed document and that it will take more than just so-called purchase of water back from willing sellers and that it understands that we must also have on-farm water use efficiency—a massive investment. There must be a win-win scenario where we make half the water grow twice as much. The ecosystems, the economies and the communities together have to be sustained, because one depends on the other. It is not a hierarchy with the environment at the top and everything else going to whistle, because it simply does not work that way. If you beggar human communities in the basin, they cannot look after and manage the environment in the way they have done for generations and struggle to do during record droughts. This government has failed in its leadership to reassure the basin that it will bring the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to task and make them do the work they have failed to do so far. The minister himself should attend some of these community meetings and show that he does, despite every other impression, intend to have a basin plan which is right for the nation. (Time expired)
Mr Deputy Speaker Scott I would first like to congratulate you on your election to the position of Second Deputy Speaker. I am very humbled to be standing here today as the re-elected member for Kingston. I thank the people of Kingston for putting their trust in me and I assure them that I will continue to fight in their best interests, both here in Canberra and back in Adelaide. I also take this opportunity to welcome my Uncle Frank and Aunt Jessie, who are in the gallery with us here today. I hope they have enjoyed their time at Parliament House.
On 21 August the people of Kingston overwhelmingly endorsed Labor’s plan for the future. In Kingston we received a 9.5 per cent swing to Labor. When I was talking with residents on the campaign trail, it became clear that they believed that Labor had a positive plan for our country’s future while the Liberal Party was fixated on the past. They believed that, while Labor was focused on improving quality of life and delivering in critical areas such as infrastructure, health and education, the Liberal Party was opposed to almost everything.
The southern suburbs of Adelaide is a beautiful place to live and work, with long stretches of coast, rolling hills and beautiful vineyards. There is a deep sense of pride among those living in the southern suburbs. However, our region of Adelaide, under the Howard government, had been forgotten, particularly in the area of infrastructure investment. Take broadband, for example: residents in large sections of my electorate do not have access to ADSL2+. For those who think that access to broadband is an issue only in rural and regional Australia, I can assure them that the problem is far greater. Suburbs only 24 kilometres from the CBD of Adelaide are not able to access ADSL2+. Lack of broadband has been a significant impediment to economic development in our local area, not to mention a frustration for those trying to study or stay in touch.
On 21 August the people of Kingston gave a clear endorsement of Labor’s plans to build a national broadband network. I was pleased to accompany the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to roll out some of the first fibre cables into the township of Willunga in my electorate. For those on the other side of the House who say that this is not a popular plan, I am pleased to inform the House that 84 per cent of the households in Kingston have signed up to have fibre rolled out into their homes. The detractors of the NBN should allow themselves to imagine a little. This is not just about getting fast internet access to many of those who need it now, although that is a huge benefit, but also about equipping our nation for the future, a place where there are still so many possibilities that we are not even aware of yet, in the areas of health, education, social inclusion and economic development. For those who say it is not a role of government to build this critical infrastructure, I would ask: if this is not the role of government, then what is?
The role of government is to act in the national interest and to build our nation, not to think just in the short term. Its role is to be looking not just at how our nation is today and will be tomorrow but at what it will be in 10 years time and in 20 years. Imagine if governments that had gone before us had not built the transcontinental rail, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Mountains Scheme. The National Broadband Network will for the first time provide an open wholesale telecommunications network that will finally provide a level playing field where any internet provider will be able to have access and compete with other internet providers to deliver competitive prices and competitive packages of telecommunications. Residents in my electorate are looking forward to being part of this future as we all look forward to the fibre network being extended next to McLaren Vale, Seaford and beyond.
The election result in Kingston also endorsed the federal Labor government’s record investment in transport infrastructure. As I said previously, the south had been overlooked by previous governments. An example of this would be the rail extension from Noarlunga to Seaford. This extension had been promised to the residents of the south for the last 30 years. I lobbied very hard for this extension because it is critical for the growing suburbs of Seaford to have transport options that are economical and to have reduced urban congestion. It was through the establishment of Infrastructure Australia and the Building Australia Fund by the Labor government that this important transport project was delivered. Ensuring that there is infrastructure investment in the southern suburbs of Adelaide and that this infrastructure keeps up with the growth of the suburbs is essential. I will continue to fight for essential infrastructure investment in the south, including roads and rail.
In addition to infrastructure in the south, our focus needs to be on creating job opportunities in southern Adelaide. Maximising job opportunities close to where people live is both economically and socially important. Many residents in the southern suburbs of Adelaide travel a significant distance to work, and travel does take its toll, not only the household budget but also on family life. Good urban planning is critically important to ensure that there is a balance of housing, commercial and industrial areas. I welcome the purchase of the old Mitsubishi site by the South Australian state government and believe that it has huge potential, if we get it right, to become a key opportunity for smart, clean manufacturing to be developing, creating job opportunities in the south.
Accessing good-quality health when one needs it is also of critical importance to the residents of Kingston and was regularly raised with me as an issue during the election. In the first term of the Labor government, we saw record investment in health services and health infrastructure, including, importantly, in my electorate the construction of the Noarlunga GP superclinic. In addition, we saw a record investment from the government in my electorate in training facilities for doctors and health professionals. There was investment in expanding operating theatre capacity at the local hospital, after-hours GP services, and extra training places at our local university for doctors, nurses and allied health—and this is just a start. Those on the other side opposed many of our initiatives, including GP superclinics, and unfortunately fail to see the practical importance of these clinics to local communities. I will give one example. Due to the investment in the GP superclinic at Noarlunga, we will be able to double the public dental chairs available there, providing improved access to those who need it the most. For too long, dental care has been seen as separate from health services. However, when I talk to those affected by dental problems, it leaves me in no doubt that their dental problems are affecting their health and wellbeing. Enabling greater access to public services, as the Noarlunga GP superclinic will, will help the most disadvantaged in our community and improve the overall health of our community. There is a lot more to be done in health, and this government is committed to repairing the damage done by the previous Howard government.
Improving our health system also includes investing in mental health. In my life before I was in this place, as a practicing psychologist, I saw firsthand just how debilitating mental illness can be to the individual suffering from it and the impact it has on their family and friends. Serious mental illness affects everything in a person’s life, from relationships to employment to physical health. We need to ensure that our health system is equipped to ensure that those suffering with a mental illness get the treatment and support they need and, importantly, that this treatment and support is effective. We need to ensure that healthcare for those with a mental illness is integrated and coordinated and, importantly, part of a continuum of care
Prevention is also critical in the area of mental health. I commend the government’s announcement during the election campaign that we would extend the number of Headspace sites around the country, including a commitment to put one in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. With an estimated 147,000-plus people under the age of 25 in my electorate, it is critically important to have services that focus on young people and their mental health but that also treat mental health in a holistic way, providing assistance in employment, physical health and social wellbeing as well as specifically in mental health issues. If we get in early, just as with any other illness, we can prevent suffering and make the road to recovery shorter and easier.
We have heard a lot of debate about this but, as a member from South Australia, water is always of critical concern and never far from my mind, as I know is the case for many of my constituents. The situation in the Murray-Darling Basin is an enormous challenge. For too long the basin has been seen as a segmented system bound by state borders that provides unlimited resources to everyone. As a result of this, the river has been deteriorating for decades. In South Australia, at the end of the river, we are seeing the dire effects. I am pleased to be part of a federal government that is not just putting this problem in the too-hard basket. In its first term, this government invested in water-efficient infrastructure and bought back water entitlements from willing sellers, helping to return water to the system to restore the health of the Murray. This government has continued the implementation of the Water Act introduced by the Howard government and, in doing so, set up the independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority to, without political fear or favour, objectively investigate what we need to do to save this river system. The independent authority has released its draft guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which maps out a course of action to save the system and prevent the irreversible decline of the basin.
There will be ongoing consultation about this guide. I have no doubt that feedback will be carefully considered, and I look forward to seeing the final plan. While we consider that important consultation, what we must not do is walk away from reform in the basin if we want a sustainable and healthy river system that in the long term supports both economic production and local communities all along the river. There will be difficult issues that will have to be worked through, but if we do nothing we will leave future generations with a destroyed river system that is no good to anyone.
Water efficiency should be seen as a challenge not just for irrigators but for urban areas as well. Investment in water infrastructure for irrigation is critical but investing in urban water infrastructure is equally important if it is to help reduce our draw on the Murray-Darling system. I was very disappointed to hear the member for Indi scoff at the potential use of recycled water in her local communities. In my local communities, due in part to the investment from the federal government and due to the commitment of those local communities, recycled water is now being used in the vineyards of McLaren Vale and in local parks in southern Adelaide, and it is being plumbed into houses for the watering of gardens.
This federal government has invested jointly with state governments and local councils to fund water infrastructure that enables not only the recycling of household water but also stormwater reuse. I look forward in this next term to working with all levels of government on practical solutions to reduce our reliance on the Murray, and to conserve and reuse water in our local communities.
In the last parliament I raised issues about the sexualisation of girls—matters I know you are also very concerned about, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke. This continues to be a concern of mine. Since raising these issues I have been overwhelmed by support from around the country. Mass media continues to send a message to our children, particularly to our girls, that they need to be sexy and that is the only thing that matters. As I have previously stated, while adults have the capacity to critically evaluate such messages, children do not. This is not about banning or censorship but about asking publishers, broadcasters and advertisers to have set guidelines to limit the negative impact that these messages have on our children and to assist parents to provide age-appropriate content to their children.
The election result in Kingston on 21 August was due to the hard work of many. I would like to thank the many ALP volunteers who helped out over the election campaign and on election day. It was a winter election in Adelaide; however, no matter how cold or rainy the weather was, it did not dissuade the Kingston volunteers accompanying me to train stations and shopping centres, or when I was door knocking, putting up election signs and handing out Labor how-to-vote cards.
I would like to thank all of those Labor party members and other volunteers who helped out on election day and during the campaign. I would especially like to thank my staff: Emmanuel Cusack, Suzanne Kellett, Mary Portsmouth, Ellen Calam and James Wangmann. I also would like to thank my campaign team: Dale Colebeck, Chris Hansford, Matt Marozzi, Aarron Hill, Antony Cole, Sonia Romeo, Sam Nock and Sarah Huy. My thanks also go to Senator Annette Hurley and Senator Don Farrell for their support during the campaign, along with the local state members in my electorate: Chloe Fox, Allan Sibbons, Gay Thompson, Leon Bignell, John Hill and Bernard Finnigan. I would like to also thank Peter Malinauskas and the SDA, John Camillo, John Short and Nigel Alford from the AMWU, Debbie Black from the FSU, and Jamie Newland and the MUA for all their ongoing support during the election campaign. In addition, my thanks go to the local activists: John Gucci—otherwise known as the corflute king—Phil and Jo Giles, Sarah Brawley and Charles Wright. I would like to also thank the staff from both the state and federal ALP offices, particularly the South Australian state secretary, Michael Brown, and Reggie Martin at the South Australian ALP branch.
I would like to thank my family, especially my mum and dad, who are always there to help—they have been there for the last three years and I hope they will continue to be for the next three years. Finally, I take this opportunity to thank my campaign manager, Emily Bourke, for her enthusiasm, commitment and fantastic ability in running Labor’s campaign in Kingston. She is the best campaign manager in the state, even in the face of discovering on the first day of the election campaign that she had conceived twins. My final thanks go to the people of Kingston who have placed their confidence in me for a second term.
This election was hard fought but there was only one winner. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise my colleagues who I worked with in the 42nd parliament who did not return to this new parliament. I put on record my appreciation for the hard work they did for their electors, as well as for the friendship that they provided to me personally.
The election on 21 August provided us with a new and diverse but also tightly balanced parliament. I am optimistic, despite what some commentators suggest, that this term of the Gillard Labor government will see us continue to establish a strong Labor agenda that is compassionate, visionary and fair. It will also be part of an agenda that will involve the parliament. To that end, I can assure the residents of Kingston that I will continue, as I have over the last three years, to ensure that the residents in the southern suburbs of Adelaide are heard and not forgotten in this place.
Before I call the member for Brisbane, technically this is not her first speech, but given the circumstances I think we will extend the normal courtesies that we usually do at this time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for your indulgence and your generosity. It is with great pride and humility that I stand before the House to deliver my address in reply contribution and my first speech as the federal member for Brisbane in the Commonwealth of Australia parliament. I have the honour of having represented two federal electorates in this House. I served proudly as the member for Petrie from 1996 to 2007 and now I have the privilege of having been elected as the 950th member of the federal parliament since Federation, representing the seat of Brisbane. Only 28 people before me have had the distinct privilege of serving different federal electorates following an absence from parliament. I was proud to serve as part of the Howard government. John Howard, as well as being the second-longest serving Prime Minister of Australia, will be also remembered as a man of principle, dignity and vision.
Brisbane has a truly remarkable history as a federation seat. Brisbane is home to the Jaggera and Turrbal people and today I wish to acknowledge them and pay respect to their elders past and present. It was in 1825 that European settlement began in North Quay in what is the edge of the Brisbane CBD. The city was named after Sir Thomas MacDougall Brisbane, who was then the Governor of New South Wales who had succeeded Governor Macquarie. Brisbane in 1825 was not a place of high society and was the destination and the new home for the worst and the repeat offender convicts who were rejected by New South Wales.
Despite our inauspicious beginnings, a city of promise, enterprise and opportunity was born. One hundred and seventy-five years on from the settlement, I stand before you as the federal member for Brisbane. I am the 11th federal member for this electorate and the first woman to represent this seat. I wish to acknowledge my predecessor, Arch Bevis, who represented the seat for 20 years. I acknowledge his service to the House and I wish him and his family the very best.
The seat of Brisbane truly personifies the way that Australia has evolved. Brisbane has emerged as one of the great cities of the world. It is dynamic, it is diverse, it is proud of its past and it is excited about the promise of its future. From its early beginnings, the Brisbane River has been a source of food and life, and the river continues to be the focal point of the electorate of Brisbane. It weaves through the suburbs of Milton, Teneriffe, Newstead, Hamilton and my beloved New Farm, the suburb of my childhood. Once called Binkinba by our local Indigenous population, New Farm derived its name from the fact that the peninsula was used as a farming area from early settlement.
The Brisbane electorate is truly unique in that it is made up of many community villages, including Wilston, Paddington, Red Hill, Spring Hill, Ascot and Kelvin Grove. These villages are dotted with coffee shops, art galleries, boutiques and restaurants. And of course the young people who work and play in the entertainment precinct of the vibrant Fortitude Valley have enriched the suburb and made it their own.
Sitting proudly in Fortitude Valley is Brisbane’s Chinatown. The father of Brisbane’s Chinatown is Eddie Liu, who is the longest serving honorary secretary of the Chinese Club of Queensland. He is indeed a distinguished Chinese Australian. He has been the driving force behind Chinese cultural heritage in Queensland and has been a tireless advocate for the less fortunate.
Close to Chinatown is the bustling CBD of Brisbane, the heart of commerce and industry for Brisbane and Queensland. On the edge of the city sits the beautiful botanical gardens, overlooking the Brisbane River and next to the Queensland parliament house. The gardens are often a place of frenetic activity as students make their way to the Queensland University of Technology, a centre of excellence in tertiary education for over 40,000 students. I have had a long association with QUT as a student and a tutor, and as an alumnus. I wish to acknowledge the outstanding work that is being done by the QUT business school in innovation, research and fostering business leadership both domestically and internationally.
Under the leadership of Professor Peter Little, one of Australia’s leading business educators, groundbreaking QUT partnerships have been developed with external organisations such as the Defence Materiel Organisation. The DMO understood that there was a need for improvement in the delivery of complex, high-priority, long-term, multibillion-dollar projects and that the current ageing workforce would be unable to meet these requirements. QUT, in conjunction with DMO, developed a new award course, the Executive Master of Business (Complex Project Management), to fill this gap. Support for this program has come from companies as diverse as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Mincom and John Holland. QUT works internationally with the International Centre for Complex Project Management as they raise awareness and provide solutions to complex project management needs across the globe.
Today provides a unique opportunity to thank Su Mon Wong, an inspirational lecturer who instilled in me a great passion for marketing and business. Su Mon, you have had a profound effect on thousands of business students throughout your 34-year teaching career at QUT. I am delighted that you are in the gallery today. This year I had the pleasure of working with Professor Peter Little, the Executive Dean of the QUT School of Business, and the QUT business alumni to establish the Su Mon Wong scholarship, to recognise students of outstanding marketing ability. Su Mon, your educational legacy will live on for future generations.
Just as QUT and education have been a driving force for me professionally, my family have had a profound influence on my personal development. Today I stand before you as the proud daughter of Italian parents, Domenic and Rosetta Gambaro. My parents’ story is the story of millions of immigrants who migrated to this country after World War II. They fled the devastation of post-war Italy to make a better life for themselves and for their family. Many of my achievements can be attributed to the values and the standards instilled in me by my family.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay respect to my father, a proud Italian Australian. Domenic Gambaro, like so many Italian immigrants from the war and immediate post-war years, hoped to forge a better life for himself in a new land after seeing the horror and the havoc that war had inflicted on his beloved homeland. He taught me the value of work. He was driven by the opportunities this country provided. He flourished in a country where the past and where you came from did not matter, and the efforts of your labours were rewarded.
My father began as a farmhand in North Queensland, eager to make a start in Australia. His beginnings were humble but his dreams were not. From the toil of North Queensland, he was able to save to buy a small fish store in Petrie Terrace where, in accordance with a time-honoured tradition, other members of his family soon joined him in building what became a prosperous family seafood business that incorporated restaurants, wholesaling, exporting and retail. Together with my mother Rosetta, they are a wonderful partnership at work and at home.
My mother Rosetta taught me the value of service to others, kindness, generosity and the value of family. They worked hard so that my two sisters, Elisa and Ida, and my brother, John, could have a better life. All this from two Italian immigrants who arrived in a distant and unfamiliar new country, armed with nothing more than optimism, an unstoppable work ethic and a genuine feeling of gratitude towards this country.
There are so many distinguished Australians of Italian descent who have forged careers in this place, particularly those who have assisted me in my career. There are countless Australians of Italian descent who have made amazing commitments to the development of the social fabric of our suburbs. It is these connections and the service of these unsung heroes in our Brisbane electorate community that truly deserve praise in this place. In days gone by, remarkable achievements were made by Joe Rinaudo and Annibale Boccabella through the Associazione Nazionale Famiglie degli Emigrati Australiani—that is, the association of immigrants of Australia—and today, in the spirit of this association, Nereo Brezzi and Dina Ranieri keep our community connections as strong as ever through Co.As.It.
Whether my local residents are involved in Co.As.It, Lions, Elley Bennett Hostel, the Red Cross, the Multicultural Development Association, National Seniors or the countless other community and non-profit organisations in my electorate, they all perform a remarkable service to our local areas, and for that I thank them. Indeed, as the shadow parliamentary secretary for citizenship and settlement and shadow parliamentary secretary for international development assistance, I very much look forward to increasing these connections with many local groups, churches and non-government organisations. As recently as last weekend I attended a remarkable event in Brisbane, the Bridging the Gap Sudanese community forum, which was organised by the Gateway Presbyterian Church. Reverend Guido Kettniss and Jounis Adwanga, as well as the members of the Sudanese community in Brisbane, made me very welcome, and I look forward to working with them and will be keenly watching the 2011 referendum in Sudan.
My father once said to me before I departed for an overseas holiday many years ago, ‘You go and see the world but you will realise that the best country in the world is Australia.’ How right he was, and that is why so many people have wanted to come to this country. Australia is known for its hospitality, its openness, its respect for others, its culture and its harmony. These characteristics make us the envy of the world.
My parents instilled in me a great love of education. I will be eternally grateful for the standard of education of the Catholic Sisters of Mercy at All Hallows School. I am proud to have in the gallery my former principal, Sister Ann Hetherington. If Sister Ann had not chosen a life of religious service and vocation I suspect that Lend Lease and Mirvac would have been fighting to have her as the CEO of their respective companies. Her business acumen and common sense is well regarded in Queensland. Next year the Sisters of Mercy will celebrate 150 years of service in Queensland. Perhaps the best way to sum up the Sisters of Mercy philosophy is with what they instil in their charges: strong minds and gentle hearts. Their philosophy has also been my guide in this place and in my business life. Sister Ann, thank for your contribution and that of the Sisters of Mercy. Thank you for all that you have done for the education of young women in Queensland.
I am committed to ensuring that every child in every school has the best education; that one day we can say that no child will slip through the cracks. The importance of education cannot be overemphasised, and in the past three years working in my family’s business I saw firsthand some of the results of the inadequacies of our education system. It is a sad reality that many of our young people are incapable of filling out a form, writing a legible letter or even counting out the correct change. I hear this complaint echoed by business people throughout my electorate, and amazingly some businesses have resorted to offering literacy classes in workplaces. It is a shame that while listening to locals in my electorate in the recent past I have heard many young parents from suburbs like Ashgrove, Dorrington, Kalinga and Clayfield observe that, while they did not wish to reject a Julia Gillard memorial hall, they were very concerned about the continued wasteful spending that casts a shameful pall over the provision of education in this country at present. I, along with Christopher Pyne and my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House, will continue to call for an inquiry into the BER program and its plethora of faults. Physical monuments are no substitute for quality teaching and that is what makes this wasteful spending so appalling—millions of dollars wasted on amphitheatres when teachers are crying out for basic educational resources.
It is at this point that I wish to acknowledge the tremendous contribution that Julie Bishop made towards the introduction of a national curriculum during the time she was education minister. She should be applauded for that.
Education can take us to so many places, whether it be to a trade or to the boardroom table, but one of the areas where education truly can make a difference is in running a small business. During the past eight months I have had the wonderful opportunity of meeting many of the 10,000 small business operators in the Brisbane electorate. From a very early age I have had many years of working in the retail, hospitality, personnel and franchising industries, so I know that more often than not small businesses out there—in Bowen Hills, Albion, Kelvin Grove and Lutwyche—are doing it tough. They are entangled in red tape and interpretive issues that even the employees of those government departments tasked to assist small business do not understand. We all know that small businesses are the job generators of our local economies. They employ our mums and dads, our children and our friends, and it is for this very reason that I will continue to fight for and be a champion of small business.
The electorate of Brisbane is at the centre of health and medical research, with the Queensland Institute of Medical Research at Herston being associated with the electorate for more than 65 years. Groundbreaking research is currently being undertaken at the institute into dengue fever, schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, parasites associated with giardia and many other areas of research. I wish to place on record my praise for the institute’s director, Dr Michael Goode, and his team of world-leading scientists. The Queensland Institute of Medical Research shares research facilities with Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and the Royal Children’s Hospital where world-class work into childhood leukaemia is taking place.
Unfortunately many of the clinical and research synergies that currently work to the best advantage of all Queenslanders will be lost because of the short-sighted decision by the Queensland government to close the Royal Children’s Hospital. There was no community consultation regarding this closure and residents were kept totally in the dark. This is a decision which is both hasty and illogical and hardly transparent in my opinion—sadly a process that is all too common for the Queensland government.
There have been many champions who have fought and continue to fight for the retention of the Royal Children’s Hospital on the site at Herston. I wish to acknowledge Dr Harry Smith, Dr Chris Davies and of course Queensland parliamentary colleagues Tracy Davis and Mark McArdle. I know that these dedicated people truly have the interests of Brisbane’s north side at heart, as do I. The northern suburbs of Brisbane including Windsor, Alderley, Gordon Park and Grange are fast-growing areas for families and these are the very suburbs that will be adversely affected by the loss not only of their dedicated paediatric emergency department but also of 130 years of medical expertise and excellence. These are the issues that I will be fighting for locally in this term and hopefully in future terms in this place.
In my maiden speech to parliament in 1996, I spoke of my first steps in this place. This, for me, is the second step on the journey to representing the people of Australia, this time through the residents of Brisbane. I wholeheartedly dedicate myself to their service for as long as I have their support.
My journey here would not have been possible without the support of many colleagues. I would like to pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. No-one can doubt his commitment and his dedication to public service. I am proud to be part of your team and working under the strength of your leadership.
I wish to thank all my colleagues who assisted me in my recent campaign in Brisbane: Julie Bishop, Joe Hockey, Greg Hunt, Brett Mason, Sophie Mirabella, Bronwyn Bishop, Eric Abetz and Bruce Scott. In particular, I would like to recognise the support of shadow Attorney General and deputy leader in the Senate, Senator George Brandis. Senator Brandis, thank you for your generous counsel during my campaign. Your constant statewide campaigning, including your dedication to Brisbane, cannot be in doubt—especially when you braved torrential rain on Kingsford Smith Drive during those early mornings. Yes, senators do campaign in the rain. I thank LNP president Bruce McIver and deputy campaign director James McGrath and their dedicated team. Thank you so much for your collective efforts.
Campaigns are run on the strength of their volunteers. Mine was no different and that is why I want to say thank you to all those who assisted me from within the party in any way—my campaign director, Mark Wood, Vicki, Tony, the three Roberts, the two Helens, Jan, Trish, Shirley, Lyle, Paul, Maddy, Rennae, Kate and all the YLNP crew who came out every weekend, staffed our booths, letterbox dropped and ran the office. Your smiles and laughter kept me going and for that I thank each and every one of you.
I wish to acknowledge my family—my brother John, my sister Elisa and my brother-in-law Glenn, who also campaigned for me. Family is everything to me, and I am delighted that they are in the gallery today. My thoughts and thanks go to my sister Ida and to my parents Domenic and Rosetta, who could not be with us due to ill health. I wish to acknowledge my father-in-law, Michael Duffy. Thank you for raising such a wonderful son. To my husband Robert, thank you for your steady guidance, your constant encouragement and your love. To my daughter, Rachelle, who is in the chamber today, and to my son, Benjamin, who is studying for university exams at home in Brisbane, you are the joy of my life and my inspiration to help others. As Winston Churchill once said:
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak,
Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
To the residents of Brisbane, thank you for allowing me the privilege of representing you. I will always listen to your wishes and display the courage to stand up and speak for these aspirations as your federal member. I will work tirelessly on your behalf and be your voice in Canberra. Thank you for this honour.
I rise to speak in reply to the Governor-General’s address at the opening of the 43rd Parliament of Australia just a few weeks ago. Her Excellency Quentin Bryce, in her opening remarks, acknowledged ‘the remarkable circumstances of our nation having its first female Governor-General and first female Prime Minister’. It is indeed a remarkable event in our political history and worthy of celebration, particularly, as the Governor-General mentioned, for the inspiration it provides for women and girls of our nation and to all Australians. We are indeed the land of opportunity—something we should never take for granted.
The Governor-General will visit Newcastle on Friday and I extend to her a warm welcome. As soon as the city learnt of her visit, demands began for her to expand her program. I am grateful that Her Excellency graciously agreed to lend her support to additional community events.
I also congratulate our Prime Minister Julia Gillard on her successful negotiations with the Independent members of parliament to form a minority government and allow the 43rd Parliament to open and operate. That she achieved the Independents’ support was not only a tribute to her ability to negotiate but also a reflection of the Prime Minister’s determination to operate fairly and to protect the status and integrity of this parliament, an important institution in its own right and deserving of our respect.
The August election results reflected the diverse views of Australians, with inconsistent and varying voting patterns across the nation linked to specific issues, demographics, state political environments and the power and persuasion of political campaigns and the media. But no messages from any political party managed to attract a clear majority of voters. From what was largely a campaign of negatives, no particular vision galvanised sufficient belief or inspired the people of Australia to overwhelmingly commit to the policies of any political party. That should be a matter on which we all reflect.
Whilst diverse views are part of our democracy, finding the courses of action that unite our nation can be elusive. At best they galvanise and inspire. At worst they minimise what we are capable of as a people. But that is a challenge we need always to tackle. In most of the complex issues that face Australia and the world doing nothing is not an option.
I believe that the Australian public absolutely crave bipartisanship and combined leadership on the most challenging issues that confront us—issues like climate change and the energy economy; responding to the mass movement of people around the world seeking asylum and opportunity; sustaining the wealth from our commodities and resources boom; providing a national high speed broadband network to better link communities and deliver health and education services more equitably; the challenges of securing the nation’s water supply fairly; prospering Indigenous Australians; balancing social and personal wellbeing; diminishing the scourge of international terrorism; and building a world-class health system.
Strengthening and achieving these goals remains central to what we do here. Australians are tired of spin and weary of the politics of division. By their vote, they have almost dictated to us their requirement that we work more positively together across the political party divide for the interests of all Australians and our nation’s future. That sounds fair to me. The use of language that derides by gender, I notice, creeps into debates here too frequently. Apparently women are always shrill but men are strident. And too many attempts are made to diminish the contribution of women to public life. The test we need to bring to our deliberations is always the test of what best reflects the needs and aspirations, the beliefs and interests of the Australian people—both men and women. Approaches that diminish the substance of the debate or that dwell on the personal and the political divides are a waste of the energies, talents and abilities of every member of this parliament.
As the federal member for Newcastle it is an understatement to say that I was relieved that the ALP under Julia Gillard’s leadership gained government—not just for my own interests but for the interests of the people of Newcastle. Over the past three years under a Labor government Newcastle has done very well, benefiting from over $1½ billion of investments from the federal Rudd and Gillard governments. For Newcastle, this has meant that our unemployment has remained below both the state and national levels, that workforce participation has set new record highs and that our quality of life has not been diminished by the global financial crisis.
For the nine years that I have been the member for Newcastle I have worked successfully with our community, business and education and research leaders to develop the knowledge base to our economy, to make us resilient and sustainable. My government in its first term funded two potentially world-class institutes at the University of Newcastle—the Hunter Medical Research Institute, now under construction, and the Energy and Resources Institute. Health and education are now our largest employment sectors, and in fact in my electorate of Newcastle the largest group are professionals. In addition, our university gained over $100 million in research grants and programs, an amazing achievement and a testimony to the quality of their academics and their research programs.
The federal Labor government also responded to Newcastle’s agenda to build a sustainable energy future for our region based on clean energy. In our first term, the federal Labor government located the Australian Solar Institute at the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle, where the largest solar thermal tower is presently under construction. A new grid facility there leads the way in integrating renewable grids into the main electricity grid. The $20 million national Enterprise Connect Clean Energy Innovation Centre was also located in Newcastle by our government and the $100 million Smart Grid, Smart City was awarded to a Newcastle consortium, which is busy mapping out the way ahead over the next three years to find the best technological solutions for a secure and efficient grid and the most efficient energy uses in homes and businesses.
Health, education, training, defence, transport infrastructure, environment and community services and programs all benefited from the funding of the last government. So the last three years have been very good ones for Newcastle under a federal Labor government, but the three years ahead hold very special promise.
The National Broadband Network, the $20 million high-speed rail feasibility study with a focus on the route between Newcastle and Sydney, as well as the prospect of potential revenue from a resource rent tax being invested into our region all present ‘big picture’ opportunities for my city. They are opportunities that I will determinedly pursue. I will continue to provide leadership to Newcastle so that together we can build the best strategic cases to secure these future investments.
The big picture items are very exciting, but there is always more to do in my city. Now that the economy is strong, Newcastle will be looking to the federal government for support for some key projects, particularly our new Federal Court building in our CBD where renewal is essential. While successful urban renewal along the Newcastle foreshore was directly related to a previous federal Labor government’s Building Better Cities program, the state government, Newcastle City Council and the business community continue to struggle with regenerating the CBD.
The 1989 Newcastle earthquake saw major employers shift out of the CBD. The Honeysuckle Foreshore Development, under the Building Better Cities program, and the rise of the suburban supercentres and shopping malls also led to enterprise and customers relocating out of the CBD. But creating a vibrant heart for our city is something that all Novocastrians desire.
At the federal level we have an interest in sustaining the growth of our major cities. The University of Newcastle’s intention to expand its inner city campus holds much promise for the CBD as well as for the positive impact it would have on the student experience, on student enrolments and on lifting retention rates in the region. The university’s recent submission for assistance under the Higher Education Structural Adjustment Fund has my full support, but if the city wants to gain the maximum urban renewal advantage from the university’s expansion into the CBD then both the New South Wales government and Newcastle City Council need to demonstrate their strongest support by devoting significant financial and physical resources to assist the university.
Whilst the New South Wales government has contributed land for development, what is actually needed is, I believe, a direct funding commitment in the order, I would suggest, of $25 million. Such an investment would provide certainty, strengthen the university’s submission for federal funding and give considerable encouragement for private investment into the CBD. I am comforted that any cost-benefit analysis of that sort of amount would validate the investment.
The other driver of any regeneration in our CBD must be modern transport. Whilst the argument continues in Newcastle around the heavy rail providing a barrier between the harbour and the retail areas of the CBD, the real task is to involve the Newcastle community, the best transport engineers and urban planners in designing a modern light rail system for the CBD and the wider city. Any approach that dictates a narrow solution will fail, given the conflicting views of commuters, residents and the business community. Consensus is achievable and essential if we are to successfully drive public and private investment into such a transport solution.
Having recently undertaken a study of light rail in Europe, I have seen the power of modern, safe and reliable light rail networks to successfully drive urban renewal and growth and to build social participation and productivity. I look forward to sharing a report of this experience with the parliament and with Novocastrians in the coming weeks. I also look forward to discussions with the Newcastle City Centre Renewal Steering Committee about how Newcastle can best prepare and advance a unified and supported case to Infrastructure Australia for support to our CBD’s growth and renewal.
But I could not be in the House discussing this agenda, planning the way ahead for my electorate, without the support of many Novocastrians in the August election. So I would like to take this opportunity to thank my staff for their tireless efforts, their ongoing dedication and their selflessness in serving the people of Newcastle. I will be forever grateful to them and I make mention of Sharon Claydon, Simonne Pengelly, Fiona Ross, Kim Hall, Nick Kachel and Emma Goodwin. I also thank the relief staff for their assistance. They have included James Cameron, Shannon Byrne, Tegan Cone and Ryan Turner.
To my ALP branch members, who ask little for themselves and demand much that is good for the Australian people: thank you for your wisdom and guidance and for your support through good times and not-so-good times. I have already apologised for the coughs, colds and shivers shared in the winter campaign. You were, and are, amazing. I want to thank the 40 people who worked on the ground in Newcastle, manning street stalls, the campaign office and prepolls. I wish I could name each and every one of them to show my personal gratitude, but time will not permit that.
To my FEC executive, whom I will name—James Marshall, Barbara Whitcher, Noel James, Gaylene Adamthwaite and Victoria Phillis—and my steadfast Federal Electorate Council delegates who dedicate themselves month in and month out to the Labor cause: I could not have done it without you. Thank you. I especially want to acknowledge the selfless work of my campaign director, Donovan Harris, who took annual leave to work on the Newcastle campaign and ensure that the thousand and one campaign tasks were completed. And I thank his partner, Tash Godress, for her support and patience in that time. I also thank my friends in the trade unions—the Newcastle Trades Hall and its secretary Gary Kennedy, the MUA, the AWU and, in particular, the Northern Districts branch of the United Mineworkers Federation for their ongoing support for me and for the working people of Newcastle. Without you, Newcastle would not be the place it is today—proudly independent, committed to community, committed to protecting workplace rights, with a strong streak of fairness and equity.
To the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who maintains her interest in everything we do in Newcastle, I thank you for your support. To my wonderful family and to my very special friends, who are always there for me: you are long suffering when it comes to supporting my political life. I love you, thank you and cherish your belief in me.
But elections also bring pain. The loss of good colleagues here brings us all back to the reality of the insecurity of political life and to the courage and commitment of those who champion our cause with their communities, particularly in marginal seats. Thank you, you are appreciated and you are missed. I know you all will continue to be an important part of your communities and of the Labor cause. But the election also brought new Labor members into the parliament. They represent renewed inspiration and energy for our government and I congratulate them all.
More than anything, the election and the Governor General’s address challenge each of us to reconsider what guides us in what we do and what we believe in. For me these beliefs are always rooted in Labor values, values that foster the dignity of work; access to quality education and training for all Australians; the rights and freedoms to demand a fair go and have a voice in our country’s progress; a strong economy that lifts everyone up, be they in business or workers; a welfare safety net for the most vulnerable; a social framework that centres on inclusion and participation; the importance of engaging with the world around shared beliefs and interests; commitment to preserving our unique environment; and providing security and safety for our nation. I commit to doing all I can to foster those values here.
Order! Before I call the honourable member for Macarthur, I remind the House that it is the honourable member’s first speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election to high office in this chamber. I would like to pay my respects to the Ngunnawal people, the original custodians of the land on which we now stand. I am humbled and honoured to represent the people of Macarthur in this the 43rd Parliament.
I am deeply passionate and committed to serving the public. I have strong community values and believe that we should support those who are in need. Most importantly, I am a believer in providing opportunities to each and every Australian through high quality health care and disability support services, safe and stable employment, affordable home ownership, the best education possible and the best opportunities and small business support. Our laws should protect these principles. They should be available regardless of a person’s socioeconomic background or place of residence. As an elected representative, I will strive to ensure that every person in Macarthur is given these opportunities to build a life for themselves and their families. There can be no greater honour bestowed upon a person than to serve the community and nation they are proud to call home. I am looking forward to the challenges that lie ahead for me as the member for Macarthur.
I would like to take this opportunity today to reflect upon the service commitments that others have made to our wonderful country and on those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. As the son of a returned serviceman, the significant personal contributions that others have made have inspired me to want to help others. I want to continue my father’s legacy of proudly serving our community. As a member of our nation’s armed forces, my father fought gallantly in the Battle of Long Tan, which was one of the biggest and most important conflicts in the Vietnam War involving Australian troops. It was one of the most successful campaigns Australia has been involved in, yet at the same time it is so symbolic of a heartbreaking period of history.
On the afternoon of 18 August 1966, 108 Australian and New Zealand soldiers of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment D Company faced an enemy force of over 2½ thousand. The 103 Field Battery, of which my father was a member, played a pivotal role in this historic battle. The 103 Field Battery pounded the enemy with over 1,000 rounds of artillery—a round every 10 seconds—creating a wall of steel around the embattled men of D Company.
Non-military personnel at the base formed ad hoc teams of labourers and worked through the night in the pouring rain to keep up the supply of ammunition to the guns. The 103rd Field Battery had to be resupplied by helicopter, making the guns a prime target for enemy fire. The 103rd Field Battery struggled through torrential rain, which made aiming the guns almost impossible, leaving gunners to rely on their own intuition to ensure that they fired on the enemy on not on the men of D Company. To make a bad situation worse, poisonous cordite fumes from the artillery fire built up a toxic haze around the guns. Despite hardly being able to breathe or even see through the haze, the brave men of the 103rd and 105th field batteries kept up the artillery fire all through the night and into the morning in delivering victory to the Australians.
The men involved in the Battle of Long Tan demonstrated courage, bravery and determination in spite of the next-to-impossible conditions. Their actions set a standard for the rest of us in how we should conduct ourselves in every aspect of our lives. I am immensely proud of my father for his courageous actions on that dreadful day. We can only imagine what it was like to be there.
While the success of the Battle of Long Tan will be remembered by generations of Australians to come, what most people forget to consider is the effect of the war on a person, a family and their community. The Vietnam War was especially cruel to the minds and bodies of returned servicemen because of the strong political antiwar sentiments that were rife at the time. There are few who will endure the haunting realities of war. We should not take these soldiers’ personal sacrifice for granted. Their actions set a standard for future generations and I am immensely proud of my father Reg for his courageous actions on that historic day. I would like to take this opportunity to honour and pay tribute to him.
Vietnam veterans are often referred to as ordinary boys who became extraordinary men. Similarly, my beginnings were that of an ordinary boy. While I cannot profess to be an extraordinary man, my father’s commitment to serving our country inspired me to want to make a difference and to continue my family’s history of proudly serving our community.
My desire to serve saw me join the New South Wales Police Force in October 1985, graduating from class 216. For the past 25 years I have proudly served my community as a police officer, reaching the rank of sergeant. My career in the Police Force was very rewarding, but as an office I had to deal with many personally challenging and confronting situations. I will never forget my first autopsy, my first deceased person or the first fatal motor vehicle accident that I attended. I have the utmost respect and admiration for my colleagues in the Police Force. It takes a person of great integrity and character to carry on through the many tragic and heartbreaking situations that they encounter. I hope that one day society will understand and respect the great undertaking that is required to serve as a police officer and give these great men and women the respect and honour that they deserve.
Outside of the Police Force, I have had the opportunity to serve my community as a councillor on Campbelltown City Council for the past 17 years. My opportunity to serve in this capacity arose from my humble beginnings. I came into the public domain on the back of a sporting achievement. As captain-coach of the Campbelltown Australian Rules football side the Monarch Blues, I proudly led my team to four successive grand finals from 1986 to 1989, supported by club president Jim Little and my best mate, Bob Prenter, who have both since passed away. They are always in my thoughts. I am sure that they are looking down today having a bit of a chuckle that a flatfoot and a footballer is now in parliament.
My success in the sporting arena became a catalyst for my political career. I was approached by councillor Jim Kremmer, who became a good friend and mentor. Thanks for being here today, Jim. I went from leading a football team to becoming a leader in my community. What I considered to be a daunting task at the time became a wonderful relationship with my community of Campbelltown and the broader Macarthur area. I was honoured to serve as Mayor of the City of Campbelltown on five occasions. The work that I was able to undertake with that community, the issues which I helped solve and the advocacy role that I was able to undertake have been privileges and honours. I look forward to continuing to serve my community with great pride.
I believe that my extensive life experience holds me in good stead to represent the people of Macarthur. My public responsibilities have given me a solid understanding of the needs of the community that I have proudly been part of for over 30 years. One such need is for infrastructure. South-western Sydney is one of the fastest growing areas of urban sprawl in Australia. Of primary importance to the people of Macarthur is a need to ensure that any population growth in the region is supported by appropriate infrastructure and community services. The population of the Macarthur region is predicted to almost double in the next 20 years. If these predictions are correct, it is essential that appropriate transport, health, education and recreational infrastructure is provided. Currently, there are still areas in Campbelltown and Wollondilly that do not have access to Sydney’ sewerage system. Our major motorways are already over-congested and peak hour commuter services are at capacity. Infrastructure should precede population to ensure that growing communities are not neglected.
The election campaign brought to light many issues facing the people of Macarthur. These included the cost of living, soaring electricity prices—and who knows where they are going to go under a Labor government—traffic congestion, air quality and high housing prices. Labor promised cheaper child care, but it increased in cost. There are insufficient health services and insufficient services for those with special needs. And in my community there was anger surrounding the bungled BER, insulation and solar schemes, and with the wasteful spending and a growing national debt. While much of this pain can be attributed to the failure of the Labor government, all levels of government must now work together to correct these wrongs and better plan for the future.
With continued development it is important to create effective policies to make growth in Macarthur sustainable. It is important that more resources be dedicated to infrastructure such as roads, hospitals and educational facilities in the Macarthur region. The Macarthur region is a shining example of the positive effects small business brings to a local economy. It provides opportunities for growth and employment. Macarthur draws its name from John and Elizabeth Macarthur, who demonstrated their entrepreneurial spirit when they pioneered the merino wool industry in Australia.
Rural Macarthur continues to make a significant contribution to the community, due to a large percentage of Sydney’s fresh milk and produce supplies. We need to ensure we continue to support local farmers and our agricultural industry by finding a good balance between local industry and urban development. Whilst Macarthur still boasts a sizeable agricultural industry, it is also home to a growing number of small and medium sized businesses, with 80 per cent of these businesses employing fewer than 10 people. These businesses range from retail, commercial, hospitality, mining, manufacturing, building and construction.
For working families in Macarthur, stable and sustainable employment is a key issue of concern, and I am a strong believer in implementing good policy which seeks to generate jobs and raise living standards. One of the fundamental keys to encouraging employment is supporting an accessible education and training system that helps upskill people for apprenticeships, skills training and professional development so that people have the opportunity to enhance their skills and abilities, particularly those who are unemployed, have a disability or who come from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. The people of Macarthur also rely on good governance to keep interest rates manageable and unemployment levels low. As a mortgage holder myself, and having felt the pain of high interest rates when I was starting a family, I know how these pressures affect people financially and emotionally. The Macarthur region has given many families the opportunity to realise their dream of home ownership. I do not want the dream of home ownership to slip away for future generations in Macarthur.
The provision of health services is essential in regions like Macarthur. Air pollution is one of the biggest health issues facing many families in Macarthur, as the Macarthur region has one of the highest rates of asthma related hospital admissions in New South Wales. At the 2007 election one of the major local issues was the approval of a twin turbine gas-fired power station in our backyard. The Asthma Foundation of New South Wales were very concerned about the state government’s proposal to construct the Leaf Gully power station in the Campbelltown area. They were not even consulted in relation to issues raised about the air quality and the health and wellbeing of the people of Macarthur. Those concerns were ignored. This is not a case of ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome. There were good and valid reasons why this power station should not have been approved. With the assistance of the mayors of the region: Paul Lake, Michael Banasik and Chris Patterson, along with the Liberal candidate for Wollondilly, Jai Rowell, I will continue fighting the battle to ensure that this power station remains only as a peak power station, not a baseload power station.
There is one particular issue that I am very passionate about—that is, children with special needs. Many families and their children are faced with insufficient support services due to a lack of resources and funding. Fortunately, Macarthur has a strong sense of community. I am very honoured to assist people who go beyond their normal civic duties to help those around them. One community based group that operates in Macarthur is the Right Start Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation, founded by Glenda Grabin, with the support of a handful of parents who have children with Down syndrome. Whilst only a year into its establishment the organisation has achieved so much, providing support, friendship and community services for families who would otherwise feel so isolated in their needs. They are currently raising funds to build a centre in Macarthur for people with Down syndrome. They currently receive no funding from the government whatsoever, but imagine all that they could achieve if they did.
Not-for-profit groups like the Right Start Foundation, Mater Dei, Beverly Park and Mary Brooksbank special needs schools play an integral part of delivering disability support services to the Macarthur region. These groups work tirelessly to make our society a better place. I believe that the federal government should share in the responsibility for children in need and ensure that it facilitates and coordinates adequate services across government and non-government agencies so that all our children can enjoy the quality of life they deserve, no matter what circumstances may confront them.
There are many other not-for-profit community organisations, such as registered or licensed clubs, that also contribute to the Macarthur region. These organisations provide a forum for people to come together to promote and pursue a common interest, ranging from sport, service in our armed forces, religion or occupation. There are 15 of these clubs in Macarthur. They employ a total of 827 full-time, part-time and casual staff and rely on the help of 676 volunteers. Last year these clubs gave over $23.5 million worth of support to local charities and recreational groups. Clubs in Macarthur have over 131,000 memberships and receive close to 4.5 million visits from members and guests each year and play a significant part in creating a closer, more socially involved community.
Mr Speaker, I now take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank all those individuals who assisted me during the election campaign. It is only through the hard work, effort and an enormous amount of support from these people that I stand here today in this magnificent chamber. To my good friend and campaign director Jai Rowell, I am forever grateful for your support and wisdom. You, along with my campaign team, Michael Shaw and Benn Banasik, put your lives on hold for six weeks. Without your hard work and dedication I would not be here today. Thanks, guys.
To my tireless volunteers: Reece White, Karina Ralston, Kathryn Steinweiss, Michael Banasik, Jarred Hilleard, David Gavin, Jeff and Janet Gray, Paul Hillbrick, Paul Hawker, George Grace, Eleni Petinos, Jason Bosketti-Zanotti, Toese Faapito, Anna-Grace Millard, Jean Newton, Chris Paterson, Tanya Harris, Jim Riley, Debbie Dewberry, Belinda Rowell, Brett Mcgrath, the Elliot family, the Hon. Charlie Lynn and the Hon. Mathew Mason Cox: I cannot thank you enough for all the hard work and hours you put into my campaign. To all the people who gave up their Saturday to man the polling booths—there are too many of you to name—I am grateful to you all. It is now up to me to provide Macarthur with the representation it deserves.
To my many good friends, some of them in the gallery today, words cannot express the gratitude that my family and I have for all your support and friendship over the years. Thanks to Dash, Johnny Mac, Sam, Dave, Lakey and Tosi, who are all here today. I am fortunate to have wonderful and supportive women in my life. To my mother Shirley, my sister Kerry and my wife Sharon, who is here in the gallery supporting me today, I am forever grateful for your unconditional love and support, which has allowed me to live my dream. To my beautiful daughters, Alana and Jess, who are also here in the gallery today, you have been my inspiration. I will always strive to make this world a better place for you both.
To the people of Macarthur, thank you for this great honour you have bestowed upon me. I give a solid commitment that I will serve my community and country to the very best of my ability. My door will always be open and I will give my very best to ensure that the standard of living in Macarthur is as high as anywhere in the world and that Macarthur is a place you can proudly call home, just as I do.
In finishing it would be remiss of me not to thank the Leader of the coalition, the Hon. Tony Abbott; the Deputy Leader, the Hon. Julie Bishop; the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop; the Hon. Dr Sharman Stone; Mr Scott Morrison; Mrs Sophie Mirabella; Mr. Alby Schultz; and Senators Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Marise Payne for their contribution and support to my campaign. I also take this opportunity to thank the Liberal Party for the honour of allowing me to represent my community. I thank members of the chamber for their indulgence today.
Debate (on motion by Mr Clare) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
When this debate was interrupted last night, I was talking about the important role that airports play in our economy and the conflicts that often occur between airports and their neighbours. It is very important that we recognise the key role that airports play as a vital piece of our national infrastructure, but it is also essential that airports live in peace with their neighbours and that they work cooperatively with those that surround them.
The Airports Amendment Bill 2010 will make changes to the master plan arrangements. The current airport master plan and major development proposed systems are not necessarily integrated with the off-airport transport systems or with state and local planning authorities. Consultation is required under the current arrangements and it is extensive in most cases. I think it is fair to say that the airports have got much better at living and working with their communities over recent years than was the case perhaps a decade or so ago. They know that to have a good relationship with their neighbours improves their capacity to operate smoothly. Although, to be fair, it must be acknowledged that in some cases conflicts still occur. Sometimes that is because communities might have unrealistic expectations, but sometimes also it is because the airport has not done a good enough job in actually talking and working with its neighbours.
In this legislation some proposed developments that are not canvassed in detail in master plans and that do not meet the trigger criteria for major development plans and so are not subject to the requirement for public consultation will be picked up. The aviation white paper identified these issues as problems in the airport development process. The bill will increase requirements for airport master plans and major development plans to align more closely with state and local planning. It will require that master plans include a ground transport plan illustrating how airport developments will impact the surrounding transport network and will include analysis on how the master plan aligns with state and local planning laws. Master plans will be required to integrate the airport environment strategy rather than having it separate to the master plan. In addition, some kinds of development that are deemed incompatible with the operation of an airport site as an airport will be prohibited. Airports will be able to seek an exemption from this prohibition in the event that exceptional circumstances exist.
The bill will also restructure the triggers for the preparation of major development plans to include developments with significant community impact, thus enabling public consultation for all airport developments that impact on surrounding areas. Additionally, the bill will seek to streamline certain development applications. If a development has little community impact there is currently no provision for airports to seek an exemption from the major development plan process. The bill will introduce such an exemption.
The bill will also allow airports to seek a reduction in the public consultation period from 60 days to 15 days in the event that a major development plan is aligned with the latest master plan and therefore has already been subject to public scrutiny. On the other hand, the bill gives the minister more time to assess applications. He will have 60 working days, where the current arrangements give him only 50 working days.
This bill was introduced into the previous parliament and a Senate inquiry into the bill was set up. A number of organisations made submissions to the inquiry, but the election was called before the committee could report. Now the bill has been introduced into the new parliament and the Senate has again referred it to the Senate Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport for an inquiry. The subject of airport planning and the impact of airport development is a controversial one and it is entirely appropriate that the Senate committee should canvass opinions from a variety of sources and allow airports, community organisations, local governments and other interested parties to air their concerns. Like all planning legislation, the new arrangements are complex and would benefit from a full and detailed committee examination.
The committee is currently accepting submissions. There are many competing interests, and the submissions that the committee has already received—at the last count I saw there were 28—reflect the fact that there is widespread community interest in this legislation. I would certainly encourage any organisations or individuals that have concerns about this issue to make a submission before the deadline of 28 October. Of course, one submission of considerable importance that the committee will need to take into account is the submission from the Australian Airports Association, which represents 270 member airports, including the airports that will be covered by this legislation. They have raised a number of areas of concern, and it is appropriate that those areas of concern be properly assessed and that the committee examine whether in fact this bill needs to be amended to take account of their concerns or, indeed, the issues raised in some of the other submissions. This bill really should not have come up for debate in the House until after the committee had finalised its inquiry and issued its report, which is due to occur by 16 November. There is no reason this bill needs to be debated at this time, and it should have the benefit of a proper committee inquiry. It is an important subject, and we could be more fully informed by the Senate inquiry that is currently underway.
Under the new paradigm, bills will need to be considered also by the committees of the House of Representatives where there is a wish to do that. The government will no longer be able to simply a ride roughshod over the House of Representatives and send everything, even if they know it is defective, off to the Senate in the hope that the Senate will patch up the faults in the legislation. The reality is that I have always been uncomfortable as a member of the House of Representatives with that process, and I recognise that it occurred under the previous coalition government just as it has under this one. But why should members of the House of Representatives be asked to put up their hands and vote for—or against, for that matter—legislation that they know to be defective because they expect the other house to fix up the mess? We should get the legislation right here. We should have our own committees of inquiry and investigation so that the legislation is delivered to the Senate in a form that is capable of being adopted.
I think it is an insult to the Senate and an insult to the members of the House of Representatives that they are asked to deal with legislation when it is not in its final form to receive parliamentary approval. Inquiries uncover defects in legislation or look at ways in which it can be improved. Given the contribution that airports make as a critical part of our national infrastructure, we would be remiss if we did not take the time to get this legislation right. The bill will not, of course, be able to address many of the concerns that will be raised in the submissions that go to the committee, but I think both houses of parliament need to take into account the concerns raised in the submissions.
As I said earlier, the airports are vital pieces of economic infrastructure. Most people agree that Sydney Airport is probably the single most important piece of economic infrastructure in Australia, and I single it out as an example because it is the busiest airport. Sydney Airport handles 45 per cent of Australia’s international airline passengers. The plane loads of overseas visitors that land in Australia are the basis of our tourism industry and much of our commerce. The tourism industry is struggling at present and needs low-cost and effective infrastructure to support its operations. In 2009, Sydney Airport serviced 33 million passengers, accommodated nearly 290,000 aircraft movements and handled 647,000 tonnes of freight.
Aviation activity at the airport is projected to increase significantly during the lifetime of its current master plan. Between 2009 and 2029, annual passenger numbers are expected to more than double to 78.9 million, aircraft movements are expected to increase to 427,000 and airfreight is expected to increase to over one million tonnes. Either directly or indirectly, Sydney Airport is estimated to generate 200,000 jobs. These jobs will provide payroll tax revenue to the New South Wales government totalling around $257 million in this year alone. The total economic contribution of Sydney Airport to the national economy is estimated at $16.5 billion, and it is forecast to rise to $27 billion by 2016. It is quite a staggering statistic that this single site—this single airport—represents about two per cent of the entire Australian GDP. So it is a very important piece of infrastructure.
Other airports make relatively similar contributions to their local communities and enable Australians across this sparsely populated country to travel safely and efficiently and to conduct business or to visit family and friends. As such, it is important that these pieces of infrastructure are not unduly hindered by excessive regulation and onerous costs. This of course must be balanced against the interests of the communities surrounding airports. While it plays a valuable role in supporting the economy and connecting Australians, aviation also imposes burdens on communities that surround airports through increased noise, traffic and pollution. That is why airport master plans and major developments are subject to periodic public consultations.
The bill makes changes to the manner in which these consultations are to be conducted, and it is important that it does so as sensibly as possible. The bill has aroused concern and elicited comment from a number of aviation industry stakeholders, local governments and community groups. Expanding the range of matters that are to be included in an airport’s master plan is something that many groups support in principle, but there is concern that this will result in an increased complexity in airport master plans, and thus hinder the assessment process, and delay the approval of master plans or result in more onerous conditions than currently exist. Requiring master plans to work with local and state governments to create a good transport system that fits in well with surrounding communities is essentially entrenching current practice, although I know that in many instances local government would like to see current practice work better.
It is also important that we recognise that this coordination with the surrounding transport system benefits not just the local community but also the airport itself. Sydney and Brisbane, for instance, have regular electric train connections, even if they do not make any money. Other cities have buses and certainly extensive systems of roads. The Brisbane airport is an example of an operation that gave up a significant amount of its own land to develop road systems for access to the airport but, more importantly from Brisbane’s point of view, for through traffic north and south around the city as part of the Gateway Arterial Road. But if state or local governments are unwilling or unable to contribute to an adequate road network surrounding the airport then there are clearly problems for all sides. The Commonwealth has recently committed to significant road upgrading around the Perth airport, but unfortunately some state governments have proved themselves to be manifestly incapable of building adequate road and rail infrastructure to keep up with growth.
The list of proposed developments that would require a major development plan under the bill has been criticised as being fundamentally flawed and likely to lead to unintended and negative outcomes. The bill also proposes that any alteration to a runway would require a major development plan and public consultation and would have to be approved by the minister. This would seem to apply not simply to alterations that changed flight paths, the number of aircraft movements or aircraft noise. Some airports are concerned that, with no definition of what constitutes ‘altering a runway’, routine maintenance of a runway or the installation of new runway lights—simple and benign runway works—could require airports to go through the process of public consultation and seeking ministerial approval. This would obviously impose unnecessary costs on airports, which would be passed on to airlines and the flying public and waste the time and resources of both the airports and the government. If carrying out much-needed maintenance work had to be delayed to allow for a major development plan to be formulated and approved, this would potentially compromise aviation safety, which is clearly not the goal of the Airports Act.
The bill also requires an airport to put together a major development plan for any development ‘that is likely to have a significant impact on the local or regional community’. The lack of precision in this language is a cause for concern, as it would apply to developments that may have a positive impact on the surrounding community as well as those that may have a negative impact. Indeed, every development has some kind of impact on the businesses around it or the people who live nearby. Surely it is not intended that all of these be picked up in this legislation. Perhaps the bill could simply be altered to apply to developments that may have an adverse impact. There is a risk the vague language contained in this part of the bill could prompt airports to refer every development to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport to determine whether or not it would require a major development plan. Again, this imposes undue costs or delays on projects and works counter to the intent of the bill.
The bill does seek to streamline the planning process by enabling the minister for transport to waive the requirement for a major development plan for terminal extensions or new taxiways that do not increase the capacity of the airport. This is a welcome idea in principle, but again it is not clear that the need for a major development plan could ever be waived in practice. Streamlining the development process where possible and reasonable is a worthy goal, but I am not sure that anything will be accomplished through many of these provisions. Likewise, limiting the consultation period to 15 days for major development plans associated with projects that have already been set out in the master plan and do not raise any issues that have a significant impact on the community is a good idea, but again it may be difficult to execute in practice. A project that requires a major development plan necessarily has an impact on the larger community. As such, it would be politically difficult for the minister for transport to reduce the consultation period, even if the issues of concern had been heard during the consultation period associated with the master plan. The master plan process already imposes strict requirements on airport operators. This is entirely appropriate and necessary to protect local communities from airport developments that impose unjustifiably heavy burdens upon them. But it is important to remember that every requirement imposed on airports is inevitably passed on to airlines and eventually to the flying public. Increasing the regulatory burden unnecessarily should be avoided if at all possible.
The coalition believes that the debate on the bill should not be occurring in this House until the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee has completed its deliberations so that we can take the report of the Senate committee into account when the bill is debated here. Practices have developed where the government uses its numbers to force legislation—even legislation known to contain errors—through the House of Representatives and expects the Senate committee process to repair the damage. House of Representatives committees have rarely been used to examine legislation, and usually the only opportunity the House of Representatives has for detailed consideration is after the bill has come back from the Senate. In the new parliament, where the Greens and ALP alliance has the numbers in the Senate, so the Senate will just be a rubber stamp, the role and scrutiny of the House of Representatives will be very important in delivering good legislation. So this practice of not listening to Senate inquiries, or not listening to House of Representatives inquiries, really has to stop. It is for that reason that I move:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House declines to give the bill a second reading until the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee has reported to the Senate on its inquiry into the bill”.
Whether or not amendments are required and what those amendments should be is not yet clear, but we will take the appropriate action to ensure that Australia’s airports are well and efficiently regulated. There are a number of issues of concern that have been raised. They need to be considered in detail and it is inappropriate for this House to be dealing with the legislation before that process has been completed. It is for that reason that we believe the legislation should be set aside. It can still be debated and completed before the end of this calendar year if the government chooses to take that action, but at least the people who have issues with this legislation will have had the opportunity to be heard. I therefore commend the opposition’s amendment to House.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I rise to welcome the Airports Amendment Bill 2010 and the reforms moved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to give local communities a greater voice and better information about planning and development at our nation’s airports. These reforms continue the implementation of the Australian government’s aviation white paper, which undertook extensive consultation with the aviation and business sectors and with communities living in the vicinity of airports. For my own part, I worked closely with local residents in my electorate living around Essendon Airport to put forward a detailed contribution to this process, and I encourage the minister and the parliament to ensure that my constituents’ legitimate concerns, which I will outline, are at the forefront of our minds when considering this bill.
Essendon Airport is located in the electorate of Wills. If anyone ever needed an example of how planning decisions and aviation policy affect peoples’ day-to-day lives, they need look no further than Essendon Airport. It has experienced some of the most significant shifts in aviation use and commercial operations of any airport in the country. It has gone from being Melbourne’s major international and domestic airport to being light aviation focused to now being a jet focused airport.
The Essendon Airport 2008 Master Plan states on page 62 that:
State Planning Policies do not apply at Essendon Airport, and therefore have not been incorporated …
This is a clear indication that local planning expectations are not one of the priorities in the airport’s commercial development. So the introduction of a bill to increase the opportunities for local communities to have their say on the airport’s development is one I very much welcome.
Essendon Airport was first established in the 1920s. It was Melbourne’s main airport until the opening of Tullamarine in 1970 saw international flights relocated, followed by domestic flights in 1971. The airport was used as a defence facility during the Second World War. In 1998, Essendon Airport was granted a 50-year private lease with a 49-year option. The joint venture company paid just $22 million for the 305-hectare site located only 11 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD. At the time, the site was valued between $70 million and $100 million—yet the lease was given for $22 million. That was a remarkable piece of dealing with public assets by the former Liberal government.
In May 2001, the then Labor shadow transport minister stated that Labor would support the relocation of aircraft from Essendon to more suitable airfields. In October 2008, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government approved the current master plan, which has meant that aviation operations will continue. The current management direction of Essendon Airport is to cater for the increased demand in the corporate jet market, at the expense of a declining light propeller driven aviation sector, and to provide a base for the state’s emergency service air wings. Essendon Airport Pty Ltd has also been investigating ways to maximise commercial opportunities on non-aviation parcels of land throughout the airport.
At no time during any of these significant changes to Essendon Airport’s aviation and commercial operational focus, particularly the privatisation phase, was the local community seriously consulted or their views adhered to. My constituents have had to live with the airport’s ongoing aviation operations in their backyard for many years now and residents have made it clear to me time and time again that Essendon Airport is well and truly past its use-by-date. It is situated in the middle of highly dense built-up communities; has a history of air accidents that have claimed lives; generates significant noise and disturbances, particularly during the curfew period; has a negative effect on local air quality through ground-running operations close to homes; and has a negative impact on local amenity and liveability. My view and the view of my constituents is that aviation operations should be phased out and reallocated to more suitable airfields. Essendon Airport’s land could then be put to alternative use to generate more local jobs and help boost local economic activity, while lifting local amenity and improving community safety. All of this is consistent with the Victorian government’s Melbourne 2030 plan.
I welcome the fact that this bill will help give the local community a better chance to have a say on the planning and development of Essendon Airport. The bill will support more effective airport planning, community consultation and better alignment with state and local planning guidelines. It requires master plans to outline the extent of consistency with local planning schemes. If the plans are not consistent with relevant planning schemes they must outline why they are not. The proposed amendments will allow the minister to extend the master plan and major development plan assessment period up to 60 days from the current 50-day period. The bill will require master plans to outline ground transport linkages and provide detailed information on proposed non-aeronautical developments and the likely effect on jobs. It will require public consultation on significant changes to airport runways. It will prohibit types of developments which are incompatible with the operation of an airport site. It will also increase the triggers requiring airports to lodge major development plans to include any developments that are likely to have a significant impact on the local community. These are all necessary changes to make airport planners more accountable to local communities and to give the neighbours of airports a greater say in what their local neighbourhoods look like. These changes are in addition to the establishment by the minister of the Essendon Airport Community Consultative Committee, which I am now a member of and which has the task of designing a Fly Neighbourly Agreement as well as working through issues of concern to local residents as they arise.
I have always held regular meetings with local residents living around the airport to ensure that I am fully aware of their views and concerns regarding ongoing and emerging issues. In March 2007 and June 2007, I held two community meetings which attracted a combined total of over 400 residents. I have previously reported the discussion and outcome of these meetings to the House. In May 2008 and February 2009, I made submissions to the Australian government’s national aviation policy review recommending more consistent and stringent planning guidelines for airport development and master plan processes. In those submissions I stated that airport planning guidelines should be consistent with local and state government planning frameworks and that local residents should be consulted.
In March 2008 I made a joint submission with the state member for Essendon, Judy Maddigan, to the Essendon Airport master plan process, recommending minimum 20-metre setback buffer zones between the airport perimeter, the surrounding community and residential back fences. Essendon Airport has given an in-principle agreement not to construct any developments within these areas and have indicated to me that they will formalise this recommendation through the next master plan process. However, in the absence of any formal and clear planning guidelines not all planning issues have been addressed to meet local expectations. The 2008 draft master plan indicated that the Victorian government was intending to construct new and modern aviation infrastructure for its police and ambulance air wing services. These emergency services have been based at Essendon for some time and the proposed upgrading of their base did not raise many eyebrows at the time.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 7.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
I rise today to speak about Anti-Poverty Week, an expansion of Anti-Poverty Day, which was held on October 17. Anti-Poverty Week is a nationwide campaign with the stated aims of, firstly, strengthening public understanding of the causes and consequences of poverty and hardship around the world and in Australia and, secondly, encouraging research, discussion and action to address these challenges, including action by individuals, communities, organisations and governments. Across Australia this week people are gathering for food drives, fundraisers, trivia nights, art exhibitions, church services, seminars, workshops and festivals in the name of raising awareness on this important issue. I am deeply committed to eradicating poverty wherever possible, and I am a fierce advocate for the Millennium Development Goals.
In September, a UN summit was held in New York to re-affirm the commitment to achieve the goals by 2015. The summit included a $40 billion commitment for the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health. The strategy will aim to: save the lives of more than 16 million women and children; prevent 33 million unwanted pregnancies; protect 120 million children from pneumonia and 88 million children from stunted growth due to malnutrition; ensure that access for women and children to quality facilities and skilled health workers is improved; and advance the control of deadly diseases such as malaria and HIV-AIDS. I have firsthand experience of the last issue. As many in this House would know, my husband is from New Guinea and we have had many family members who have suffered, and indeed lost their lives, as a result of both these diseases.
As stated on the UN summit outcome document, the MDGs are achievable, but:
Every effort must now be made to accelerate progress to achieve these goals through national action plans, policies and strategies that address barriers to progress.
The eight goals which we continue to promote—and I think it is important to highlight them tonight—are: to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; to achieve universal primary education; to promote gender equality and empower women; to reduce child mortality; to improve maternal health; to combat HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases; to ensure environmental sustainability; and to develop a global partnership for development. This final goal is plainly not the least in importance.
Anti-Poverty Week provides us with an opportunity to remember that poverty is also something that is indeed happening in our own backyard. The time tonight does not allow me to expand on this significantly but I do want to make a few points. First, it is important that we face the matter of poverty in terms of homelessness and joblessness in our own local communities, and I wish to acknowledge all those non-government and volunteer organisations that are working very hard on the ground to respond to those challenges.
I also wish to acknowledge the many community organisations and not-for-profit-organisations that this week have focused on poverty being an important issue for us to respond to. One such organisation is the Blue Mountains TEAR group, which seeks to raise awareness about social justice issues by partnering with church and aid organisations, locally and around the world. TEAR is also one of the key Christian organisations supporting the Micah Challenge, which focuses on delivering better outcomes for the poorer communities across the globe. Both TEAR and Micah seek to work within the key framework of the Millennium Development Goals which I mentioned earlier.
We have an urgent duty to address the matter of poverty, not just around the globe but also in our local communities. In my final remark, can I note that 2015 is approaching rapidly and we, together with the nations in our region and around the world that also have committed to the Millennium Development Goals, can work together to make a difference. (Time expired)
I would like to bring to the attention of the House two significant events related to mental health that recently took place in my electorate of Calwell. The events coincided with Mental Health Week, which ran from 10-16 October, and World Mental Health Day, on 10 October, and marked significant initiatives which will determine how mental health issues are prevented, and indeed treated, in my electorate of Calwell over the coming years.
The first launch was the ABC plan, or the ‘Act-Belong-Commit’ campaign plan, which is aimed at promoting a mentally healthy Hume and Moreland, and the other was the opening of the Broadmeadows prevention and recovery centre. The ABC plan places an emphasis on connecting to the community, while the Broadmeadows centre is part of an $11 million federal Labor government investment to open three similar centres that will change the way mental illness is approached in Melbourne’s north-west.
Mental health is a serious issue and it has risen to prominence in recent times, partly because of the very good work of Australian of the Year and mental health advocate Professor Patrick McGorry. I recently had the opportunity of catching up with Professor McGorry in Melbourne, where I had the opportunity to discuss mental health issues with him both in general and also as they relate specifically to my electorate of Calwell.
The two launches in my electorate were significant indicators of the heightened awareness of mental health issues and how this awareness is translated into the community. Key issues that emerged from the launches focused on the importance of preventative mental health care, encouraging an active connection to the community and, of course, easing social isolation. The ABC plan developed by Curtin University of Technology, in Western Australia, was originally inspired by the Victorian Together We Do Better campaign, with a view to making the ABC Hume and Moreland plan one of the first pilot programs in Australia. The ABC plan shows beyond any reasonable doubt that social connectedness is one of the most powerful determinants of our wellbeing. The more integrated we are with our community, the less likely we are to experience illnesses which range from the common cold to more serious and debilitating illnesses such as heart disease and depression.
Mental health professor and guest speaker at the ABC launch, Professor Tony Jorm, said that, of the 109,000 people over the age of 16 in the city of Hume—and indeed my electorate of Calwell—about 22,500 would suffer mental illness. Professor Jorm said that our area had a higher rate of certain mental health risk factors: we have more young people, greater unemployment and more people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. He also said that the area’s large population of people from non-English-speaking backgrounds sometimes came from cultures where mental illness is more stigmatised, making it harder for them to seek help and to talk about their conditions.
Calwell is home to 132 diverse cultural groups, who are often unaware of the services available to them. The ABC plan responds to this as part of addressing a 2008 report from North Western Mental Health. The plan aims to remedy the situation by involving 20 agencies including the Hume City Council and Dianella Community Health to help make communities more proactive in this area.
Furthermore, the 2008 Victorian Population Health Survey released this month found that my electorate had the highest proportion of self-reported psychological distress in the state. The opening of the Broadmeadows prevention and recovery centre last Thursday is crucial to addressing this issue. The opening of the centre came about as a result of a partnership between the North West Area Mental Health Service and Mind, which is an organisation which focuses on helping people manage their mental illness. The centre’s services are often referred to as ‘step up/step down’ programs because they allow for different levels of mental health care ranging from preventing mental relapses to short-term intensive residential programs.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the importance of the federal Labor government’s promise to invest $276.9 million over four years to provide more psychology and psychiatry services and community support, to invest more in direct suicide prevention and crisis intervention and to promote good mental health in young people.
Both initiatives are to be commended for recognising that social inclusion and connectedness are fundamental to maintaining good mental health. (Time expired)
I rise to talk about the Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory. On Monday, 18 October 2010, yet another report was released that will bring distress to all caring human beings about the treatment of children in the Northern Territory. The Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory was announced by the then Minister for Child Protection, the Hon. Malarndirri McCarthy, on 11 November 2009 and the board of inquiry was appointed by the Chief Minister, the Hon. Paul Henderson, on 9 December 2009. The inquiry made a total of 147 recommendations but in reality is a distressing indictment of a system that has failed our children.
I stand here in this place both saddened and angry at what has occurred over a long period of time. I have listened to the response of the Northern Territory Labor government and Minister Macklin on how they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet they have not successfully protected these children. When I hear these comments, it is as if they are saying that by spending this money it somehow absolves them of any type of responsibility or accountability. It drives me to ask: who is responsible? Why shouldn’t those responsible for administering these programs accept some of the blame? Why shouldn’t parents accept some of the blame? Why shouldn’t people who abuse their children physically, mentally and emotionally be dealt with the most harshly? Blessed are the children. There is nothing more blessed than the innocence of a child. To abuse that trust is to set up a future society for failure. It is simply not good enough to sit back and say, ‘We’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars.’
Of the 147 recommendations, two relate directly to actions as needed by the Commonwealth government. I will read out these recommendations, but I point out that the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP, shadow minister for families, housing and human services, has already indicated that the coalition supports both these recommendations. They are recommendations 6.2 and 6.4. Recommendation 6.2 is:
That the Northern Territory Government explores with the Commonwealth the (trial) development (or expansion of) existing infrastructure in remote areas (e.g. women’s safe houses, day care centres, health clinics) to provide on-community therapeutic residential options for mothers and small children where the latter have been identified as being at risk of removal into foster care because of ‘failure-to-thrive’, neglect, or otherwise inadequate parenting. The trial of such options would need to include the development of a therapeutic intervention model and staffing /supervision options.
Recommendation 6.4 is:
That the Northern Territory Government seeks the cooperation of the Commonwealth in undertaking a strategic review of child and family wellbeing services in the Northern Territory. The review should inform the development and implementation of a joint strategic plan around service planning and funding in order to overcome fragmentation, inefficiencies and duplication and to target services where they are most needed.
Let me put both these options this way. The Commonwealth must adopt a ‘big brother’ approach to this problem. I do not believe that any Australian—or any Territorian, for that matter—will oppose the protection of children. It is absolutely unspeakable that a society like Australia in 2010 could be faced with such horrendous outcomes as those outlined in this report.
Let me make it clear to the Gillard Labor government and to the Henderson Labor government: you are being judged. You are being watched and you will be judged. I do not care how much money you tell the Northern Territory society you will pay. I want to know how many children’s lives have been bettered and saved. I also call on Australia’s leaders, especially our Indigenous leaders, to step forward because your children, our children, need you. I ask all members of this place to ensure we keep a vigilant watch on how this matter is addressed.
I want to talk about some of the wonderful events that I have been able to attend in my electorate of Page over recent times. I attended one in September, when a palliative care volunteers support service invited me to meet with the palliative care volunteers. I was able to listen firsthand to the stories about the wonderful job that they do. It is very exacting work and it is all voluntary but it is also wonderfully enriching. I was able to hear some of those stories. The service has been operating for six years now, all voluntary, supported through Libby Shearer, the manager of volunteer services community programs in Grafton, and supported widely throughout the community and also supported by some of our service clubs. They have given vital support to that service over the years, as some of the clubs do right across our communities. So I want to thank them for the work that they do and for having me there as their guest. I am following up for them to do some advocacy around better services for palliative care. It is one of those issues that really is just care and it is part and parcel of what happens in health. Yes, we always need volunteers to supplement and to complement, but the North Coast Area Health Service does provide some support to the service as well.
Another event I went to was with Uniting Care Ageing, the official opening of their palliative care suite in Lismore. It was an opening and naming ceremony of a special room like a unit, wonderfully done and organised through the Lismore-Caroona auxiliary. It is Kalina Palliative Care Room. It also got a special name on the day, Waratah. It is a special room for end-of-life and the opening was something the whole staff and community and the residents were involved in. Mollie Strong gave the address on behalf of the Uniting Care Ageing North Coast regional board. She is also the state president of the Hospitals Auxiliary for New South Wales and does wonderful work in that role.
I also was going to attend the Kyogle Pastoral, Agricultural and Horticultural Society event. Unfortunately there was lots of rain but we are resilient and still pressed on. I want to thank the president, Les O’Reilly, and secretary Wendy Piggott, but I did not have a voice so I could not actually go and open it.
That would be a first.
You seem to have regained your voice.
That is right. I regained it in time to get here. I had been around a lot of smokers, which I had not been for a long time, and it affected my voice. The event went off really well. The state member was able to be there. I am only sorry I could not be there, but I wanted to talk about it.
This weekend in Lismore we have got the North Coast National, held at the showgrounds over a few days. It is celebrating its 125th anniversary and promises to be one of the biggest and the best. I want to thank all the people involved in it, particularly John Gibson.
A couple of other events happened a few months ago but it is my first opportunity to mention them. Casino is a beef capital of Australia and we have Casino Beef Week. It has a wonderful committee, again volunteers, headed up by Stuart George, who is a councillor and Deputy Mayor of Richmond Valley Council. He did a really great job this year of making it successful. It is a very important industry in our area. We have a big processing centre there, the Northern Meat Cooperative. It has nearly a thousand employees and that is a big employer in a small but growing and thriving country town. Casino is also host to Primex, which is regional Australia’s premier primary industry exhibition. It has the largest agricultural machinery and commercial sectors that cater for almost every aspect of primary industry. That is a wonderful event which goes over a whole week. It was very successful. I was able to have a stall there along with other people, meet up with a lot of friends and make new friends.
It is a bit of deja vu for me to be following the member for Page, because I followed her maiden speech with my maiden speech. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. It is good to see she has got her voice back. I look forward to the maiden speech next week of the new member for Longman, who sits next to me in the House.
I rise this evening to brief the House on the progress of my campaign to protect the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club from a new council lease payment. By way of background for interested members, the Langford Senior Citizens Club is a place for seniors to get together and take part in shared activities, including regular bingo sessions. Langford itself has a significant retired community made up of good and genuine people who have made a positive contribution to society throughout their lives. I have visited the club on several occasions and I must say that it is an uplifting and happy social club that provides a good service to the community and it is a club that is highly valued by the local community.
Many local councils, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I am sure this would be the same in your electorate of Fisher—show respect for our older community by making seniors clubs and organisations exempt from lease payments on their facilities. Councils in my electorate that deserve particular credit for this include the City of Canning, City of South Perth and City of Belmont. These arrangements are good for the clubs, good for seniors and good for the community. Most ratepayers do not mind their rates being used to support youth and seniors. Lease payments make it difficult for seniors clubs to stay afloat without putting membership fees up, which would make membership impossible for seniors doing it tough. At a time when society is worried about seniors being isolated we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for seniors to be a part of the community.
For years this principle has extended to the Langford Senior Citizens Club, and the City of Gosnells should be congratulated for this. During this time the club has been able to flourish, providing a great service to the community. However, just a few months ago staff at the City of Gosnells council contacted the Langford Senior Citizens Club with plans to change this arrangement and charge the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club lease payments. The proposed charges were quite substantial, with council staff suggesting two options. Option 1 was a lease including outgoings, in which cleaning is included. The proposed fees were estimated at $1,575 for the first year going up to $6,300 in year 4. Option 2 was based on an hourly charge with a share base facility, starting with a year 1 cost of $1,458 and going up to $2,916 in year 4. But the sharing factor made it virtually impossible for them to keep their club running.
As you can probably imagine this caused great distress to the organisers of the club and they contacted me for assistance. The organisers have managed to keep membership down to just $7 a year, making it accessible to most people in the community, many of whom survive solely on pension payments. After meeting with the treasurer, Myra Cunningham, it became clear that they could not afford to pay proposed lease payments that would total $1,500 in the first year and rise steeply in subsequent years. It looked likely that, should Langford Senior Citizens Club be forced to meet these payments, they would have to disband. This would of course be devastating for the Langford community. As a response, I launched a petition in the Langford community against the proposals and there has been a fantastic response from local residents with hundreds signing and returning forms to my office. It was particularly pleasing to receive signatures from young an old alike, demonstrating that the club is highly valued by the entire community. I would like to thank all residents for their support.
I used the results of this petition in a letter to City of Gosnells councillors ahead of their vote on the staff recommendations last Tuesday and I am pleased to advise the House that community will was heard, with councillors voting against the proposed changes and deciding instead to refer the item back for further consideration. This is certainly a reprieve for the Langford Senior Citizens Club and I thank the councillors for the clear thinking and process they showed last Tuesday. The Langford Senior Citizens Club is happy with this short-term success, although it is important for us to continue to be vigilant as council staff reconsider their options. It is likely they will sit down with the club and negotiate, and I am happy to provide the senior citizens with support if and when this happens.
In closing, our seniors, who have contributed so much to our society over their lifetimes, should be treated with compassion and respect by local councils. Many councils do, and they deserve credit for it. I would like to congratulate the City of Gosnells council for listening to the people and rejecting moves to impose impossible payments on the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club.
I think we can all agree that few things are more important than the health of our family and friends. That is why I have made fighting for better healthcare for our community one of my top priorities as the member for Greenway. Blacktown-Mt Druitt Hospital is one hospital with two campuses physically located in the electorates of Greenway and Chifley respectively but servicing patients from both.
Two weeks ago I met with senior staff at Blacktown Hospital—Professor Peter Zelas, the executive medical director for Blacktown Hospital, and Kate Murphy, the hospital’s acting general manager—to discuss the future healthcare needs of our local community. It was a great opportunity to listen to and exchange ideas with the hospital about their strategic plan to meet the health needs of our community and to see how I, as their representative in the federal parliament, could be the most effective advocate to deliver the best outcomes for residents in west and north-west Sydney.
I previously served as a director of the Sydney West Area Health Service, so I know there is growing demand for health services in our region and the challenges of service delivery in an area of both rapidly expanding population and, unfortunately, some of the highest presentation and mortality rates in areas such as cardiovascular disease and respiratory illness. As I said in my first speech in this place, our community is Australia’s nursery, with eight per cent of the population under the age of five, which is second only to the Northern Territory. Significant greenfield residential development is currently occurring in north-west Sydney, particularly in my electorate and the neighbouring electorate of Chifley. Indeed, it is a statistical fact that the population growth in the Blacktown local government area far exceeds that of the Parramatta local government area in which Westmead Hospital is located. According to the NSW Department of Health’s Demand and Performance Evaluation branch, Blacktown-Mt Druitt Hospital has one of the highest levels of emergency department presentations—higher than Westmead Hospital, higher than RPA and higher than Nepean Hospital. The need for more resources at Blacktown Hospital is further highlighted by the fact that there is, at any one time, a high level of patients from the Blacktown local government area in Westmead Hospital. As such, it is clear that the community I represent is a region in great need of the best-quality health services.
The government’s historic health reforms provide the perfect opportunity to address these disparities and respond to the growing health needs of west and north-west Sydney. It is an opportunity we cannot afford to squander. We must get it right. In particular, a guaranteed majority level of Commonwealth funding; the establishment of local health networks; and, activity based funding will enable us to address these concerns by ensuring that health services are properly resourced and allocated as efficiently as possible. Hospitals will also have new national standards to meet in areas such as elective surgery, emergency departments and safety and quality of care.
I think it is also important to remind ourselves that it was only in April this year that the historic COAG agreement was reached, whereby the Commonwealth government became the majority funder of services, capital and research and training in our public hospitals. I have been in ongoing discussions with the minister for health and she has been a frequent visitor to Blacktown Hospital during and post the federal election. I thank the minister for the interest she has shown in the health needs of my electorate and I am sure the member for Chifley echoes my sentiments. We look forward to working with her to deliver more services for the residents of west and north-west Sydney. And from my discussions with local health administrators, it is clear they also want to work with the government to ensure that our community has the health services we need to meet projected population growth and to help address the geographic disparities that currently exist in health outcomes.
I am particularly encouraged by the objectives of Blacktown Hospital to pursue a variety of modes of care that reflect, for example, the importance of preventative health measures. The figure that has been quoted to me by the hospital is that for every notional health dollar that is spent, a mere two cents is invested in preventative health and the remainder is spent on treatment. It is my objective to work with my colleague the member for Chifley and with the staff of Blacktown Hospital to ensure better health services are delivered.
It is my objective to build on the already significant investments that have been made by the Commonwealth government to local health services. These include $15 million for the Blacktown GP superclinic to take the pressure off Blacktown Hospital’s emergency department; $17.6 million for the construction of the University of Western Sydney’s clinical school and research and education centre at Blacktown Hospital which will train more doctors, nurses and health professionals for Western Sydney; $4.2 million for 18 additional beds at Blacktown Hospital, including six new acute beds and 12 new emergency beds; and $854,000 for new equipment at Blacktown Hospital, including a new defibrillator, heart-monitoring and breathing machines and urological equipment. Local residents can be assured that I have been and will continue to be a strong fighter on their behalf to improve local health services in Greenway. (Time expired)
I have a couple of issues I would like to raise tonight, one a familiar one and one a very much local achievement that I would like to share with the House. The first issue concerns personal services income and the ongoing assault of the Gillard government on self-employed and independent contracting people. We have been witness to one of the most extraordinary arrays of weasel words, of slick billy sophistry and of what I think are misleading claims about what has been going on within the government, at a time when more than two million people derive their livelihoods from independent contracting.
It was very clear, prior to the 2007 election. The then Labor opposition said to the independent contracting community that they would make no change to the personal services income tax laws. It was that simple; it was that straightforward; it was that reassuring. ‘No change’ were the words. The Labor Party earned some credit from the independent contracting community for being so clear and upfront—but, my, has so much changed! Within a short period of months after the election of the Labor government we saw the Board of Taxation with a review sponsored by Senator Nick Sherry claiming that the whole system was a threat to the integrity of the tax system and that independent contracting was somehow was depriving employees of their entitlements, not for one minute recognising its important economic contribution, that self-employment is a virtuous and honourable ways to earn a livelihood and the key economic driver that independent contractors were providing right throughout our community.
We pressed the issue. Had the government changed its mind? Were they going to backflip on these very clear assurances? We saw Senator Sherry laud the report for change and sponsor it to the Henry tax review, completely contrary to the assurances that had been given. Then it went off to the Henry tax review. The government had ruled out a number of Henry tax review recommendations quite explicitly, but not the recommendation to turn on its head the personal services income tax regime that governed the way in which independent contracting and self-employed people interacted with the tax office.
Then, leading up to the most recent election, we could not get the government to repeat their assurance. We saw every weasel word, all the ducking and weaving—everything you could possibly imagine to tell the independent contracting community that something was on. Then after the ALP national conference, what did we learn? We learned through the media that a secret task force involving senior government ministers and unions had been set up to attack this very issue to undermine the reassurance that had been given. In recent weeks we have pressed the government for clarity: what are their plans? All we could get out of the new Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, is that there is no desire for change. I am not sure what stimulates Bill Shorten’s desire, but being in secret meetings with unions may well go some way towards stimulating that desire. But could we get those simple, straightforward words, ‘no change’? No, we could not get that assurance.
Today in Senate estimates, when Senator Sherry was asked about his involvement in these secret meetings—meetings reported in the Financial Reviewand the unions’ involvement and the number of them before the election, Senator Sherry said, ‘No, there were no such meetings.’ You could almost hear the clunk as the Fin Review journalists fell off their chairs at what seemed a blatant contradiction of what is known to be the case.
Having sponsored this assault—this attack on self-employed and independent contracting people—and having lauded recommendations to turn on its head the very system that Labor promised it would make no change to, Senator Sherry was asked what representation he is now making on behalf of the small businesses whose minister he is supposed to be. Is he highlighting the grave concerns his own action has generated? We got told in Senate estimates: ‘Nothing to do with Senator Sherry anymore. He’s no longer the Assistant Treasurer.’ That is the point, Senator Sherry: you are now the Minister for Small Business. You are supposed to be out there advocating for the small business community, for the more than two million independent contractors and self-employed people. They are the backbone of so many communities. They are small business entrepreneurs. You are supposed to be their advocate. Simply saying that you will take no action, because you are no longer the Assistant Treasurer, just highlights how small business has been reduced to a sideshow within this Gillard government and how Labor just does not care for small business.
This complete neglect of a crucial community within our economy and a crucial group of people who provide opportunities and enterprise right across this continent must stop. Those people from Labor who claim, however falsely, that they have an interest in small business need to get their Minister for Small Business to take an interest. He was recognised as hostile to small business as Assistant Treasurer; he has proven himself to be completely indifferent and ineffective as minister now. Something has got to change. This cast on my foot reflects me trying to kick Labor into having some interest in small business. They need to get on with it and do it now. (Time expired)
I want to place on record my gratitude to those members who spoke in support of my motion relating to gene patents that was debated on Monday, 18 October: the members for Moore, Page, Moreton, Mallee, Greenway, Robertson and Wentworth. We spoke of how patents over human genes are preventing Australian doctors and scientific researchers from carrying out testing for disease and research for treatments because these patents prevent access to the underlying genes causing disease. We also spoke of our collective bewilderment as to how patents could even be granted over genes, given that they are naturally occurring phenomena and not inventions.
Tonight I wish to speak to a related aspect of the gene patents debate, and that is the direct link between the granting of gene patents and the cost to the PBS in the supply of essential biomedicines to the Australian people. I will illustrate this with the specific case of erythropoietin. Two decades ago a 22-year patent entitled ‘Polypeptides of erythropoietin’ was granted by IP Australia to Kirin-Amgen, a US biotechnology giant. Amgen is the world’s largest biotechnology company, and it is easy to understand why once you know of the billions of dollars it has received on the back of this one patent. Erythropoietin, also known as EPO, is a naturally occurring human protein. It controls the production of red blood cells in the human body, a function it has performed as humans have evolved. EPO is given to patients on chemotherapy and kidney dialysis.
In 1983 one of Amgen’s scientists, Dr Lin, identified the human gene that regulates the production of EPO in the body. He was only able to do this because Amgen was given exclusive access to samples of this substance extracted from human urine by a US academic scientist. That scientist, Dr Goldwasser, had received substantial amounts of US taxpayer research funds to undertake his research. But having gained a valuable biological sample he gave it exclusively to Amgen, which used it to identify the human gene which contains the genetic information for EPO.
The genetic sequence of the human gene was not invented by Amgen. In fact it is identical to the human gene as it exists in every human being. This is an undeniable fact, as a US court found in 1989. The court said:
… the overwhelming evidence, including Amgen’s own admissions, establishes that uEPO—
human EPO—
and rEPO—
synthetic EPO—
are the same product. The EPO gene used to produce rEPO is the same EPO gene as the human body uses to produce uEPO. The amino acid sequences of human uEPO and rEPO are identical.
But on the basis that Amgen had been the first to identify the gene and isolate it—that is, merely remove it from the human body—IP Australia decided that Amgen had met the patentability criteria provided by section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act, namely that it had invented erythropoietin.
How can this be so? A human gene carries the genetic information common to all humans. It might be a chemical but its sole function is to store biological information, much as a DVD or CD stores digital information, so that when it is played by the human body the end result is a protein. But there is an important distinction. While the digital information stored on a DVD is the result of human creativity, a human gene and the information it contains is a product of nature.
As a result of the grant of this patent over the EPO gene to Amgen, the cost to the Australian taxpayer through the PBS has been over $1.5 billion. But the exorbitant cost of this biomedicine, which is little more than a synthetic form of a naturally occurring biological material, has been exacerbated because, during the time when Amgen held an exclusive 22-year monopoly, it was the exclusive supplier of this biomedicine under the PBS. Since their introduction on the PBS, EPO biomedicines have been No. 1 in the PBS Highly Specialised Drugs list. In 2006, the last year of Amgen’s patent, the cost of EPO to the PBS was nearly $100 million.
What this has also meant is that Australian companies were unable to manufacture EPO in Australia. Nor were they able to supply it in competition to Amgen. Not only did this mean that the cost of EPO to the PBS was much higher than it needed to be, but it meant the loss of Australian jobs in Australia’s generic medicines industry. Furthermore it has prevented Australian R&D into EPO biomedicines.
In the long term we know that genetics is going to play an even greater role in the health of Australians and so it is critical that this parliament eradicate these morally offensive, legally unjustified and research-suppressing gene patents once and for all. We must return innovative competition to Australian scientists and to Australian manufacturers of generic biomedicine so that they can work together to improve health outcomes, spark deeper and wider research and massively reduce the unnecessary impost on the Australian taxpayer.
Tonight I rise to speak on an issue that is of grave concern to the people of regional Australia, including the people of the electorate of Parkes, and that is the issue of local rural roads. As most people would realise, nearly everything that we find on our supermarket shelves starts its journey on a local road. As the face of agriculture has changed over time, the funding for rural roads has not kept pace. That has prompted the formation of a new group within Australia called the Australian Rural Road Group, which is very much in its infancy but has a membership of rural councils with agricultural production in excess of $100 million per year.
The Australian Rural Road Group presented at the National Local Roads and Transport Congress in Bunbury in Western Australia last week to rousing applause from delegates, who felt at last there was someone planning to tackle the issue of local rural roads head-on. The Australian Rural Road Group have identified several methods of attack to approach this problem. Over the years, the level of asset management and reporting from local government has been less than satisfactory. There has been an improvement over the last few years, but at the moment there is not a nationally unified, uniform method of asset management of local roads. That is one of the first things that the group are lobbying for—that there be an asset management system that can identify the issue right across Australia. Their preliminary studies point to an annual shortfall of $3 billion in Australia in these roads.
What does this mean? In my electorate I have agricultural businesses that are generating produce worth millions of dollars. They are expected to meet market contracts, with grain and livestock, on roads that were built in the time of Cobb and Co. and are very little different from that time. As well as getting produce to market, people need to get their children to school. A lot of farm people work off farm as well and need to get to their place of employment or into town for medical emergencies and the like. Last week I went to the village of North Star, which is in an area known as the Golden Triangle in north-west New South Wales. I met with a farmer who, two weeks out from this year’s grain harvest, is still trying to deliver last year’s grain. He has contracts to meet but he has been able to shift very little grain for the last couple of months because of the wet weather we have been having. This is causing enormous financial hardship to this farmer, and he is just a small example of what is happening right across the country.
While I was on this road visiting Mr Greg Hohn, and looking at the condition of the road that he has to use to deliver his grain, I spoke to a neighbour, a lady who was going to collect her children from the school bus. She explained to me that the week before she had been hopelessly bogged in her four-wheel-drive vehicle trying to get her kids to school. The rural roads group was formed by the Gwydir and Moree shire councils—they were the nucleus—and has now grown exponentially. Their membership is coming to Canberra next week. They are meeting with Minister Albanese and Minister Crean. I thank them for their time and I thank the member for Fremantle, who has just left, for helping facilitate that meeting for me. That will start the ball rolling to finding a clear and definite method to tackle the problem of the gross underfunding of local roads and the severe productivity brake that this is putting on the development of regional Australia.
On 17 September I was invited to attend a thankyou morning tea at one of my local schools at Corrimal. It was the Aspect South Coast School. They were having a morning tea to say thank you to a whole variety of people in the community who have undertaken activities in support of the school. The school provides educational programs for children with autism aged between four and 16. It not only services my electorate but covers the whole of the Illawarra from Helensburgh in the north to Kiama in the south and west to Appin. It provides educational services to Shoalhaven and the Riverina as well. It operates from its prime site at Corrimal in my electorate but also has satellite classes in both Department of Education and Training and Catholic schools across the region, including in the seat of my colleague the member for Throsby.
This particular school has a tremendous reputation. It is very well regarded locally and well supported. I was particularly pleased to be able to be there to celebrate with them the multipurpose library facility and two new classrooms that they had been able to put in place with the $850,000 grant under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. The principal, Mr Bruce Rowles, told me that this was something that they had been desperately keen to do but had had a view that it would take them years and years of fundraising before they would get to the point of building these new facilities. And we celebrated the thankyou morning tea in those facilities. It was particularly rewarding to see how important that program had been to that school and how well received it was by the students and their parents and supporters.
All of the different classes of students put on musical performances for us. Music plays a very big part in the curriculum at the school. They were all particularly enjoyable. The young children did a lot of rhythmic activities with drums and percussion instruments. Then there was a young woman called Cheyenne Mazzini who sung for us. She did an individual performance and was part of a choir performance. She is an amazing performer. Singing has given her a great deal of confidence and given her an opportunity to expand her school performance because of finding that confidence through singing. It was a tremendous performance.
I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge those from our community who were also at the thankyou morning tea who go out and do all sorts of things in order to raise money for the school or to provide activities for the students at the school. I should here acknowledge that in 2010 the school was supported by the combined Rotary clubs of the Illawarra. They fundraised for the school through the ‘Wings over the Illawarra’ event, a tremendous annual activity. Other supporters included the Wollongong Innerwheel Club; the Illawarra Police; Charity Ball—another annual event that is a tremendous fundraiser, and that was in 2010 aimed at raising funds for the school; the Woonona Women’s Bowling Club; the Kiama Leagues Club; the Wollongong RSL Bowling Club; Michael Seaman and the Goodguys, a local business; the Leisure Coast Horse Trail Riders, who are particularly involved in activities with the students; Masonicare; Gloria Jeans at Figtree; Quota International; the North Wollongong Surf Club; the University of Wollongong through the University Cares and Social Club; Paul Charlton and the Woonona Boardriders; McKeon’s Swim School, which provides activities for the students as well; Doreen O’Keefe; Interchange Illawarra; and the Illawarra Small Business Club.
I met some volunteers. As with so many schools, the volunteers are an invaluable part of it, particularly Helen Whelan. Helen this year was the Autism Spectrum Australia Volunteer of the Year for 2010. I also met local volunteers Jim Caitons and Di and Stu Pearson. I want to commend all of those who support a tremendous local school. I want to commend Bruce and his staff, who take such joy in the job that they do. I also want to commend the students for a very welcoming and enjoyable day at the school. I look forward to visiting time and time again.
In 2007, when Kevin Rudd led the Labor Party to power, the outgoing coalition government left them $762 million in housing funding for our first Australians. Those first Australians include the community of Palm Island in my electorate of Herbert. The coalition’s Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, Mal Brough, had released a plan for an estate of 46 houses on this island. The island community was looking forward to this much-needed housing. We are now in October 2010, three years on from Labor’s hollow words, and I would like to inform the House on the progress on this housing project. Let us see. You carry the one, add up the next column, bring it all down and what do you get? You get zero. Not one of these 46 houses has been built.
There have been four temporary structures placed on the island. These homes are in kit form and are not much bigger than an average sized garden shed. They have been plumbed and erected on steel posts, with the veranda resting on the neighbour’s fence line in one case. The cost of these ‘structures’—because you cannot call them homes—has been approximately $300,000 each. I can go to a local hardware store in Townsville and buy a three-bedroom kit home for $25,000, have it helicoptered to the island, import a master builder by hydrofoil and serve him cocktails while he puts the house together and I cannot get to $300,000 each.
The most disturbing part of this gross waste of money is that, although the island has its own electrician, four registered plumbers as well as a number of tradesmen and women, none were given any work on this job, not even the site clean afterwards. It all came from the mainland. No local labour was used to build these temporary dwellings. When is the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs going to release the desperately needed funding for permanent housing on Palm Island?
In my maiden speech, I referred to a consultant class of government and non-government people taking too much on the way through. Clearly, I was wrong. For that statement to have any veracity, some must, by definition, have made it through to the people in need. What the people of Palm Island need is a government that does what it says it is going to do—a government of action. During the election campaign, Labor trotted out the member for Griffith—in his new capacity as a backbencher—to Palm Island. He pranced around looking, for all intents and purposes, as though he was going to say or, shock horror, do something, but of course he did nothing. Still, nothing has happened for the people on this island. Despite promises, the minister certainly did not come anywhere near Palm Island. The people of Palm Island have, quite rightly, said that they do not want to talk about welfare; they want to talk about small business opportunities and jobs. I would like to suggest that the government stops sitting on its hands and actually creates opportunities for local residents to build their own lives through gainful employment.
Those opposite will have you believe that they are a party that believes in egalitarianism—that a child from Aurukun can become a High Court justice. He or she may be able to become a High Court judge but, under this government, he or she cannot even get a job building houses in their home town.
In conclusion, I ask the government to let us just get on with it. Palm Island residents are living in deplorable conditions, with up to 20 people to a house. On Palm Island there are licensed plumbers, licensed electricians, many local people with building and labouring experience. We could do anything and would get a better result than the one by which the government must stand shamed. Zero houses in three years is not that hard to beat.
I would like to inform the House of developments at Maroondah Hospital, a large public hospital in my electorate of Deakin. As the member for Deakin since 2007 I am always out and about talking to local people about what concerns them. One of the most frequent topics of discussion is the quality and accessibility of local health services. Whether it is getting in to see a doctor, the length of waiting lists at local hospitals or the treatment at emergency wards, health in the outer eastern suburbs is now and always has been one of the high-order issues.
During the election campaign, back on 14 August, we announced that if re-elected a federal Labor government would invest $5.7 million to deliver 20 new subacute beds to Maroondah Hospital and a further 10 subacute beds to Angliss Hospital, which is in the neighbouring electorate of La Trobe. Both these hospitals are part of the Eastern Health network. A total of seven hospitals run under that banner.
On 14 August Nicola Roxon, the federal Minister for Health and Ageing, the Victorian health minister Daniel Andrews, and I made an announcement at Maroondah Hospital on a lovely sunny Saturday morning—a very nice setting for an announcement like that. The announcement was part of a larger package of funding—a big one—of $265 million for new capital works projects and equipment. It came about as a direct result of the National Health and Hospitals Network Agreement reached between the federal and, in this case, the Victorian state government. This agreement, signed in April this year, not only delivered these 20 new subacute beds for Maroondah Hospital but will, over the next four years, deliver more than $900 million in additional federal spending in Victoria. New beds will mean shorter waiting lists. Sick patients will get to surgery quicker and families will get better access to the health care they need, both for them and their children.
Maroondah Hospital is some distance out of Melbourne proper. It is 30 kays east of Melbourne and it has a huge catchment area. It does not really have a major hospital further east than that, so many people come from the outer suburbs and outlying areas to get treatment there. Originally built in 1976 and now operating with 326 beds, Maroondah Hospital also operates as a teaching hospital. But, despite recent expansions and rebuilding, it continues to get busier, as I said, as people travel in for treatment not only from outlying areas but also because our local population is ageing, so there is a heavy demand on the hospital.
In addition, Maroondah Hospital also provides secondary acute care and acute adult mental health services. Under that heading comes things such as the emergency department, general and specialist medicine and surgery, critical care services, ambulatory and allied health services. Like most hospitals the emergency department is always busy but waiting times have been dropping, and that is a good thing. But I expect to see them drop even more once the National Health and Hospitals Network is in full operation.
For many residents of Deakin and the surrounding areas in the outer eastern suburbs, there is no alternative but to go to the emergency department at your local public hospital if you have a sick child in the middle of the night. It is not that easy to find a GP who is open and, even though we are extending programs so that there will be, it is still a difficult task.
Overall this extra $265 million in funding will mean that Victorian hospitals will have the capacity to treat 5,000 extra patients every year, once these additional beds are in place. That is happening soon and that is a good thing to hear.
I would like to commend the state Labor government, led by Premier John Brumby, for working in partnership with the Gillard Labor government to deliver better health services for the people of Victoria. It is so important. I would also like to thank the board and CEO of Eastern Health and the health professionals working at Maroondah Hospital for their hard work to ensure that they have the capacity to use these federal funds and serve the local electorate.
Under the National Health and Hospitals Network the reforms that will come in will see surgery waiting lists cut. It will see treatment times at emergency wards capped at four hours and will deliver an additional 5,500 new or training GP places over the next 10 years. The federal government’s health reforms will bring the total new health investment over the next five years to $7.3 billion. I look forward to the opening of these 20 extra subacute beds in the near future and know that the community and residents of Deakin will benefit greatly.
The following notices were given:
to present a Bill for an Act to make provision in relation to the selection of a site for, and the establishment and operation of, a radioactive waste management facility, and for related purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, and for related purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to deliver essential financial services at reasonable cost, fair loans and mortgages and increased competition for the community, and for related purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Defence Act 1903 to provide for parliamentary approval of overseas service by members of the Defence Force.
Yesterday the Main Committee was due to convene at four o’clock and, quite understandably, the decision was made to delay our meeting so everyone could listen to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House. No-one mentioned that decision to the clerks or to the Serjeant-at-Arms, so we had all the staff here. If a similar decision is made in future, it would be appreciated if that information could be conveyed to the appropriate sources.
Since the release of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan there has been a spate of letters and articles in my local media written or submitted a small group calling themselves the Northern Victorian Irrigators. The group’s President, Dudley Bryant, has usually been the one whose name appears at the bottom of these pieces. He has been one of the most determined supporters of the pipeline taking water away from farms to Melbourne. He and his group are trying very hard to convince the public that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan’s failure to address the socioeconomic impacts of a reduction of up to 45 per cent of irrigators’ water is as directed by the coalition’s Water Act 2007. Alternatively, he argues it is due to that act overlooking socioeconomic elements as an essential part of the act. Mr Bryant no doubt took his lead from Mike Taylor, Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, who used this excuse when confronted with the fact that the Basin Plan had not properly taken the community impacts into account and in fact was inaccurate in statements about job losses expected.
So let us look at the Water Act. In part 2 of the legislation, under subsection (b) of section 20, the act says:
The purpose of the Basin Plan is to provide for the integrated management of Basin water resources in a way that promotes the objects of this Act, in particular by providing for:
… … …
The Water Act also says the Basin Plan is to be developed:
… … …
The mandatory content of the Basin Plan, according to section 22 of the Water Act 2007, must also include:
So, quite obviously, there is no problem with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority picking up the elements of the act, the socioeconomic analysis requirements, and doing the hard yards. They failed to do that. We will never know quite why. They understand their mistakes and they are trying urgently to patch up the problems, having announced an inquiry themselves to be completed by March next year.
I want Mr Bryant and the Northern Victorian Irrigators to really put their hearts into trying to create a win-win scenario, not be apologists for the Labor government, not back up Mr Crean’s suggestion that it is all the fault of the Water Act. They really need to do better because too many people throughout the Murray-Darling Basin understand the significant impacts on communities if all they get out of this is a bald figure of some 3,000 gigalitres to 7,000 gigalitres less water for them to provide food and fibre for the rest of Australia and, indeed, for the world. I am certainly going to do my best to get a win-win scenario with on-farm water use investment and irrigation infrastructure investment. (Time expired)
I rise today to pay tribute to the many teachers in my electorate of Holt and around the country. We here know teaching is one of the most important jobs in our community and we welcome the acknowledgement of their contribution on World Teachers Day, which will be held on Friday, 29 October. World Teachers Day has been held annually since 1994 and its aim is to mobilise support for teachers and to ensure that the needs of future generations will continue to be met by teachers. According to UNESCO, World Teachers Day represents a significant token of the awareness, understanding and appreciation displayed for the vital contribution that teachers make to education and development.
We are very fortunate to have in my part of the world examples of outstanding teachers who, by sheer force of their commitment, their vision and their leadership, indelibly shape the schools they both teach in and lead—in many cases physically—and imbue their schools with strong community and student development values. They profoundly influence the lives of the students who attend their schools. One such example is the principal of Hampton Park Primary School, Christine Wakeling, who has inspired many by both her teaching achievements and her leadership of the school over many years. Hampton Park Primary School was opened in 1922 and provides a prep to year 6 program for its 421 pupils. Hampton Park Primary School is a very cultural and ethnically diverse community. In fact, 213 of the students were born overseas and 456 of the parents were born overseas as well.
Hampton Park Primary School aims for at least a 95 per cent attendance rate, as the school recognises the need for students to attend school ‘all day, every day’ to achieve and actuate their potential. During her time as principal, Christine has led a number of great initiatives to improve the educational experience for students, such as establishing a breakfast club and conducting free twilight movie nights at the start of each year. The twilight movie nights were held for the first time in 2007 and they have proved very popular for the community, particularly for Hampton Park Primary School students and parents, who in that forum come together and have the opportunity to meet and know each other at the start of each new school year. A twilight movie night brings these families together and, I think, starts fostering the process of strengthening the school community.
The significant contribution of Christine has been recognised by many including Ms Lynda Carter, the President of Hampton Park Primary School. In Lynda’s words, Christine Wakeling is someone who has given 110 per cent to the school daily. As an example, just before the last holidays she had family commitments that took her to hospital until three o’clock in the morning but, notwithstanding this, arrived at the school at 7.30 that same morning and worked until late in the evening. There are many more anecdotes of this nature but most of them go mainly untold, I think because of Christine’s self-deprecating and self-effacing nature. Christine is just one of those great teachers, an inspiring example to the residents and school members of our community. (Time expired)
I rise today to again place on the record a matter of extreme concern for my community. The ambush announcement by the Prime Minister on Monday, that my community will have a detention centre built at Inverbrackie, has caused enormous concern leading to an emergency community meeting, to be held tomorrow evening. For those who consider themselves to be vastly morally superior to the rest of us in this place and outside, I make this point very clear to begin with: my issue is not with the people; my issue is with this government and the decisions that this government has made, because it has failed to manage Australia’s border security properly. The decision to turn the defence housing site at Inverbrackie, near Woodside, into a low-security detention centre has been made necessary because this government has lost control completely of Australia’s borders. It is an emergency decision not well thought through or planned at all.
The most appalling aspect of this decision is the total lack of consultation by this government with my community or anyone associated with governance in South Australia. In fact, yesterday Premier Mike Rann expressed his frustration on Adelaide radio over the fact that he had only been called an hour before the decision was announced. He did not even get the opportunity to ask questions prior to the announcement of this decision.
What is very clear from the community feedback and the concerned citizens making contact with me and my office is that there is real concern about the plan’s effect on local schools, health services, law and order and community services, and that concern will need to be addressed. The immediate impact on property values in the area is of large concern to many of the constituents who have contacted me. These are hardworking members of my community and, like the rest of us, they found out through a press conference. But what makes this worse is that the Prime Minister herself was in the Adelaide Hills on Sunday for a photo-opportunity with our CFS, 17 kilometres from Inverbrackie and Woodside, and did not have the courage to get in her car and go there and front the community members to be honest with them and tell them what she intended to do with this site. It is an absolute disgrace and it underlines what this government is: it is rotten to the core.
This Prime Minister has not only now abandoned South Australia on the Murray-Darling Basin plan but also abandoned the South Australian community by failing to consult on this decision. The anger in my community is white-hot, and it should be. South Australians and the Adelaide Hills deserve better than this. They deserve better than this government. This government has completely lost control of Australia’s borders. (Time expired)
As time ran out for the debate on the private member’s motion on food labelling I wish to continue the discussion. I was going through the New Zealand guide because it gave a very good explanation of what is and should be on labels in Australia. Labels should tell the truth. If you have a picture of strawberries on the label, it must contain strawberries, not some other fruit that might be in season or a chemical substitute as the flavouring agent at the time of labelling.
Labels should be readable, prominent and distinct from the background and in English. Warning statements should be at least three millimetres high and once again readable even on small packages. Directions for cooking and storage should be clear. It should show the use-by date and should show that it be kept refrigerated at the appropriate temperature. And it should suggest that it is important that cooking instructions be followed.
The food additives should be listed in the ingredients list by name or number and those should not be in a very complicated code. Allergens should also be very carefully labelled because there are a lot of ingredients that seem to be in everything that is a problem for many people. Such foods as peanuts, tree nuts—almonds, cashews and walnuts—shellfish, finfish, milk, eggs, sesame and soya beans are the usual ones. There are others too for certain people such as chocolate, tomatoes, lentils, peas, red wine and citreous to name a few. Information about GM and irradiated foods should be on the label.
Country of origin can be very confusing as there has been a distinction between ‘product of Australia’, ‘made in Australia’ and products made overseas, and the country from which the main products originate. We also have to have the name and address of the manufacturer or the importer for recall purposes as well as a lot number or date. Any other information such as whether it is organic, kosher, halal or vegetarian also needs to be there. Also the glycaemic index should be included. As well, other symbols, such as ‘fat free’, should be explained.
I think the review that is being done in Australia is going to be very important in helping Australians become more familiar with what is going into our food, where it comes from and how it is processed. The review is being led by a great Tasmanian, Neal Blewett. I wish him well in his work.
I am a great believer in foods in season being sourced as locally as possible. I think our farmers should be encouraged to serve local markets first and keep the processing within a reasonable travel distance so that our food can be fresh and keep its taste naturally without chemical intervention. (Time expired)
In the time available to me I would like to advise the House that it is my intention to introduce on behalf of the opposition a private member’s bill called the Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010. The coalition will be introducing this bill—and hopefully we will have the opportunity to debate it—to end the needless and pointless red tape and compliance burden being imposed on employers big and small by the Gillard Labor government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. Despite strong objection from every corner of this continent from Gladstone to Esperance and from every organisation that has any concern whatsoever about the compliance and red tape obligations on businesses large and small, the government seems to steadfastly want to persist in imposing this pay clerk obligation—a mandatory duty to do the government’s work for it—on employers, despite the fact that it has offered no compelling reason for doing so.
In fact, the concerns the coalition have raised and that many big and small employers, industry organisations and those engaged in this debate have also raised about the cost, the compliance risk, the complete needless and pointless nature of this mandatory obligation, have been swatted away by the government, as if they do not matter, saying: ‘It will only affect a few employers. What kind of big deal could it possibly be? The coalition are wrong in raising these concerns.’ It says this despite the chorus of support that our actions have generated amongst those with an interest in letting business get on with the business of creating employment opportunities and wealth for our country. But you do not have to follow the coalition’s argument. In fact, the government’s September 2010 document ‘Centrelink employer engagement plan: paid parental leave scheme implementation’ says:
A major potential constraint for many employers will be the readiness of their payroll and accounting software to implement the scheme. This may impede our—
‘our’ being the government’s—
advocacy of early adoption and in a worst case scenario could cause severe disruption in the lead-up to the mandatory employer rollout from 1 July 2011 if the necessary systems are not in place.
That is a direct quote from the government’s own document and it highlights the very specific, legitimate and real concerns many employers have, particularly smaller employers. Yet the government is displaying arrogance and indifference, and is out of touch with the small-business people of this nation. It continues to ignore their concerns, swats them away as if they do not matter because it so disconnected from the real-life challenges of small business. In the government’s first 2½ years, it has reduced the number of people employed in small business by 300,000. This lack of interest has to end. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak about Gareth Clayton, a predecessor of mine as the federal member for Isaacs, who tragically passed away on 1 July in Bangkok, Thailand, following a road accident. Gareth was born in Hampshire, England, in 1942 and studied at Liverpool University, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science. He also obtained a Diploma of Education from Makerere University in Uganda. Gareth then came to Australia where he worked as a teacher before becoming a scientific officer for the Australian Road Research Board. In 1974 at the double dissolution election that saw Gough Whitlam win a second term as Prime Minister, Gareth won the seat of Isaacs for Labor from the Liberal, David Hamer. It is worth noting that at that election Labor lost five seats and Isaacs was one of only two seats that Labor won from the opposition. Gareth was an active local Labor member. ALP branch meetings at the time were held at his home in Chelsea. Bob Corcoran, a very long-serving local ALP branch member, remembers Gareth as someone who did not feel bound by convention, which included once turning up in the chamber in a red jumper rather than the obligatory suit. Gareth held his seat for only one term, losing it to David Hamer in the 1975 election that followed the disgraceful dismissal of the Whitlam government.
His maiden speech in this place had three areas of focus: equality for women, fairness for Indigenous Australians and care for the environment. I am proud to share these long-held Labor values with Gareth and I think that there would be few members of this parliament now who would disagree with his sentiments. Back in 1974, however, these were not universally agreed positions. After serving in parliament, Gareth went on to have a very strong academic career, including more than a decade in Thailand as a special lecturer in statistics at King Mongkut’s University of Technology in North Bangkok. Gareth’s commitment to public life extended to being a regular contributor to the Thai publication The Nation, where he wrote on a range of matters, including education in Thailand, the ongoing religious conflict in the south of the country and the recent heated protests in Bangkok. Having read some of the 40 pages of online tributes his students left following his passing, it is clear to see that in his post-parliamentary career Gareth was a dedicated, caring and much loved academic. His legacy will live on through the many students he taught both in Australia and in Thailand. I paid my condolences to his loved ones, his family, his friends and those in my local community who knew Gareth from his time as the member for Isaacs.
I rise to talk about the most environmentally pristine and valuable lake system in Australia. The lakes all reside within my electorate. They are the Great Lakes, Smiths Lake and Myall Lake, which are connected to Port Stephens, starting at Tamboy, through the Myall River.
At the approach to it, in Port Stephens, there is an island called Corrie Island. Corrie Island is a Ramsar listed site and, as such, deserves and requires certain protections. The Ramsar convention, according to its website, is:
An intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.
The issue at hand here is siltation. There have been environmental problems through Myall Lake and down through the Myall River. There have been massive sand shifts from areas like Winda Woppa through to the eastern channel between Winda Woppa and Corrie Island. In discussions with me, Gordon Grainger, who heads the Myall River Action Group, has pointed out that there is clear evidence that dingoes, feral dogs and feral cats are now able to cross from the mainland to Corrie Island and they are destroying the birds and habitat.
Corrie Island is managed by the New South Wales government through the Department of Environment and Climate Change. They have provided funding for dredging of the western channel—and they are to be congratulated on that—but the eastern channel is the channel that separates the mainland from Corrie Island. The eastern channel is now silted up to the extent that people are able to walk across it at low tide, and if people are able to walk across it then so are predatory animals. It is having a dire effect on species such as the eastern curlew. There are five threatened shorebird species on Corrie Island and one endangered ecological community, coastal salt marsh.
I call on the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, to have real discussions with the state government and to look at what sort of funding package can be provided to make sure that the eastern channel is dredged. This will improve the water flow out of the Myall Lake system and down through the Myall River. It will help prevent the diseases that are spreading through the fish stocks in this area because of the lack of water flow and the natural salinity washed back up through tidal movement. The timing is now critical, and I call for urgent dialogue and discussion on this issue.
I take the opportunity in the debate this morning to recognise an Illawarra woman, Jessica Sparks. I met Jessica not so long ago—only last year, actually. It was through her family contacting my office about a standard matter. We did some representations and then she came and did some volunteer work in my office. She is now at university, studying journalism—we all go astray in our youth, so I will allow her that activity.
The important thing to know about Jessica is that at 16 she was declared near the end of her life, and in 2009 she had a double lung transplant. She is the most amazing young woman—full of life and enthusiasm with the brightest smile you have ever seen. I have to say, it brings a bit of sunshine into my day every time I see it. She is absolutely grabbing life with both hands and enjoying every day, and I think she gives us all a great lesson in doing that.
I particularly want to acknowledge that earlier this month Jessica participated in the Transplant Games, which were held here in Canberra. She has an amazing medal haul in the Cunningham hall of fame; she brought home 16 medals from the Transplant Games. Jessica won gold in the three-kilometre walk; she won silver in the discus, the ball throw, the four by 100-metre relay and the singles darts; and she won bronze in the shot-put, the 100 metres, the long jump, the doubles darts and the crossword competition. We take great pride in every single one of the medals that Jessica has brought back to Cunningham and we acknowledge that the Australian Transplant Sports Association, as it was initially in 1988, organised and ran the first Australian Transplant Games and there were 151 competitors at that point in time.
I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the significance the transplant program has for people’s lives. We can see that reflected in Jessica’s life. I acknowledge the generosity of the family who, in their grief, gave us the opportunity to enjoy Jessica’s sunny smile every day.
There were 174 donations recorded between January and July of this year, and we have seen a significant increase in those under the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. I want to pay tribute to Jessica. We all take pride in her—I know her mum, family and friends do. She is an inspiration to all of us in the broader community. I congratulate the volunteers and organisers of the Australian Transplant Games this year.
Last week I attended a forum in Bairnsdale hosted by the Victorian Farmers Federation. It was a very constructive debate attended by about 70 people. Two of the key issues were the ongoing dry conditions and the impact of wild dogs on farming productivity and the natural environment. While there has been some recent and very welcome rainfall in the Gippsland area, the annual rainfall figures for the region still indicate very dry conditions in many parts of Gippsland and the exceptional circumstances provisions may need to be extended beyond 30 April next year. Neither this week’s rain nor the recent floods primarily caused by the snow melting have done enough to alleviate the very dry conditions farmers are recording in vast areas of my region.
One of the senior VFF representatives, Chris Nixon from Orbost, believes that the Gippsland and Eden-Monaro areas are maybe the only two remaining areas in Australia that are still in drought. I raise this point because I have had the opportunity to speak briefly to the federal agriculture minister this week about this issue to simply highlight that it should not be assumed that all parts of Australia, and in this case, all parts of Gippsland, are showing signs of recovery from the drought. The EC provisions of income support and interest rate subsidies may need to be retained beyond 30 April next year.
On the issue of wild dogs—and I note the presence of the member for Indi, who also has a major problem with wild dogs in her electorate—many farmers are simply disgusted with the Brumby Labor government’s failure to recognise the extent of the problem and the impact it is having on regional families, both in Gippsland and in the upper Murray area.
I have raised this issue in the past and I will continue to do so until I am convinced that both the state and federal Labor governments understand the impact that these dogs have. Wild dogs not only affect the costs of farming but also produce social and environmental costs through the emotional stress placed on the mental health and well being of farming families and through their impact on native fauna.
The state candidate for Gippsland East, Tim Bull, is working with my colleagues at the state level to develop very practical solutions while Labor and the Independents simply talk about the problem. The coalition has already announced a bounty on wild dogs and foxes in the lead-up to the state election, and if it wins that election it is also committed to using aerial baiting as part of a suite of measures to complement the existing activities. I certainly do not blame the doggers on the ground—they are doing the best they can—but there has been a lack of urgency for the past decade from the Labor government in dealing with these problems.
A Victorian Liberal and Nationals coalition government will use aerial baiting to control wild dogs and protect livestock and native fauna. In addition to its introducing an aerial baiting program, the coalition will reinvigorate the wild dog management committees to increase their effectiveness and participation in decision making on wild dogs. It will also lobby the Gillard government to create a national threat abatement plan for wild dogs. These are more good reasons for Victorians to get rid of the arrogant Brumby government. It is an arrogant government which is Melbourne-focused and it is completely out of touch with the needs of regional families.
Last Wednesday, 13 October, I and the member for Wakefield attended the commissioning of the new Holden Cruze production line at the GMH plant at Elizabeth. The new production line was switched on by Minister Kim Carr and South Australian Deputy Premier Kevin Foley in the presence of GMH CEO Mike Devereux, Elizabeth plant manager, Martyn Cray and Holden employees, many of whom were personally associated with designing and building the new production line.
The commissioning of the new line was a great day for South Australia, particularly for the people whose futures depend on GMH’s future in South Australia. For several years, particularly since the closure of the Mitsubishi plant in Adelaide, GMH’s future in Adelaide has been a frequent topic of public discussion and negative commentary by doomsayers. The Elizabeth plant has so far proved the critics wrong, which is testimony to the resilience and commitment of all associated with it.
We saw evidence of that commitment over the last 18 months when production at the plant slumped during the global economic downturn and the workforce rostered themselves and effectively shared the hours of work available rather than see fellow workers retrenched. What makes the new production line exceptional is that the planning and necessary investment required was made in the midst of a global economic downturn when motor vehicle assembly plants around the world were scaling down operations and cutting costs.
The new Holden Cruze, which will be manufactured at the plant, is an impressively designed car and I expect it will become a market leader. For much of the workforce, the new line means a return to full-time employment. A combination of full-time employment with increased production at the Elizabeth plant will add a massive boost to the local economy in which Holden has for decades been a key economic driver.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Senator Kim Carr for his personal commitment to the automotive industry in Australia. The federal government’s $140 million support obviously was crucial to GMH’s decision and that support was very much driven by Senator Carr’s belief in GMH and his belief in Australian manufacturing. The demise of GMH’s Elizabeth plant would have been devastating for northern Adelaide and the Gillard government recognised that. On behalf of the families, many of whom live in the Makin electorate and in the member for Wakefield’s electorate, who are employed at the Elizabeth plant, I express my appreciation to the government and to GMH for their continued faith and investment in the Elizabeth plant.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Mr Garrett:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak briefly on the Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2010 and to indicate that the opposition will be supporting these changes. We are quite content to accept the government’s assurances that these are well-intentioned amendments. They will better clarify the eligibility status of partnerships for assistance under the Tradex Scheme Act and they will also remove some redundant provisions from the act.
The Tradex Scheme was introduced in 2000 as a key initiative in the Howard government’s industry statement of the time. It has effectively served its purpose since then in streamlining the way in which relief is provided for businesses paying customs duty and GST on imported products that are ultimately intended for re-export, or for incorporation into other exported goods.
The coalition will not be opposing the amendments contained in this bill on the understanding that their effect will be to make minor adjustments to improve the administration of the Tradex Scheme. We also trust that the government’s intention is to continue to provide good stewardship of a scheme which has for a decade provided genuine and important benefits to Australian industry and enhanced our international competitiveness as a trading nation.
I thank the opposition and the parliament for its support of this bill. This is an important amendment which looks at a number of key features of our international competitiveness, which are very important. It is right to say that the legislation was first introduced in 2000 as a program to relieve business specifically from paying customs duty and GST on imported products where those products are then further used and re-sold on as export products themselves. It makes perfect sense to make those adjustments and ensure that Australia remains competitive as a trading nation, and that our customs duty and GST are reflected adequately in the regulations that we have.
The Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2010 clarifies the eligibility of particular partnerships for the Tradex Scheme and it removes a number of redundant provisions. It specifically outlines the goods that may be imported and subjected to a process of treatment and then their re-exportation—and how that actually works—and whether they are incorporated in those goods, and the time period. It specifies the process that takes place, and that it must happen within a period of 12 months, for the people importing those goods and accessing the relief that this scheme provides. The current scheme provides about $200 million worth of upfront duty and GST relief to industry—a significant amount on importing and exporting.
What the Tradex Scheme does is make sure that organisations in this country not only remain innovative but also remain competitive. That is something that this government has always had as a priority for its policy development.
I take note too of comments from the member for Indi and her support for the bill. I say to her and to the opposition that the bill, as it reads, is quite simple and the amendments are straightforward. There are no complexities or unintended consequences. It is really just about removing any confusing parts particularly in terms of how it reads for partnerships in relation to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. It specifically provides that it include a body politic or a corporate as well as an individual.
Of course, while a partnership is a relationship recognised by law, it is also an unincorporated body. Therefore coverage of partnerships under the Tradex Scheme could be considered unclear. While partnerships are not explicitly referred to in the Tradex Scheme in the legislation, they were not and are not intended to be excluded from the scheme itself. The bill clarifies that position and makes clear if there was any confusion in the past.
Also the redundant provision being removed by this bill relates to the transitional arrangements that you would expect in transferring the proceedings from the former scheme, the Texco Scheme, to the Tradex Scheme, which it superseded in 2000 when the new scheme was brought into play by the previous government. These are completely consistent with this government’s approach since 2007 to remove the regulatory burden on business, including small business, and we ought to continue doing that not only as a government but as a parliament.
This bill is being reintroduced. It was introduced earlier this year but due to the House being prorogued for the election it needed to be reintroduced. It is a good bill and is supported by everyone and I commend it to the House.
I thank those members who have contributed to the debate on the Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2010. I am speaking in my capacity as representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
As expected, this is a non-contentious bill seeking to clarify the eligibility of partnerships for the Tradex Scheme and also to remove redundant provisions. I want to thank the member for Oxley for his contribution. The Tradex Scheme was previously introduced as a streamlined program for providing relief to businesses paying customs duty and GST on imported products that are to be exported or incorporated into other goods that are to be exported. While partnerships were not explicitly referenced in the Tradex Scheme legislation, they were not and are not intended to be excluded in the scheme. This bill seeks to clarify this position in law.
The bill’s other minor amendments remove redundant parts of the act consistent with the government’s objective of reducing the regulatory burden. The Tradex Scheme will continue to provide real benefits to Australian industry and improve our international competitiveness as a trading nation.
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 30 September, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010, and I will keep my comments relatively brief. Civil disputes today have the unfortunate association with an adversarial culture; a culture that conflicts with the values our courts are designed to uphold. Too often people involved in civil disputes slide into the litigious entrenchment of a mud-slinging match between two adversaries. This leads to lengthy court battles and the greater burden on the court system.
The aims of this bill are to change that culture to encourage people to turn their minds to resolution. In the case where a resolution cannot be reached, the bill ensures that when such matters progress to court the issues are properly identified, ultimately reducing the time required for a court to determine the matter. The bill is intended to complement the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Act 2009, which imposed a requirement that federal civil procedure be directed towards the just resolution of disputes quickly, inexpensively and as efficiently as possible. It implements the recommendations of the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council in its 2009 report The resolve to resolve.
The principle measure in this bill is to require an applicant in proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Court to file a genuine step statement at the time of commencing proceedings, describing the steps that have been taken in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The requirement does not apply to family law or native title proceedings, which have their own alternative dispute resolution processes. It does not apply to criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings, appeals—including appeals from tribunal decisions—where a party has been declared a vexatious litigant, proceedings that relate to warrants, or compulsory disclosure notice or ex parte proceedings. When proceedings are urgent or if the safety or security of a person or property would be compromised by taking alternative steps, the statement may specify the reasons that such steps were not taken. The sanctions applicable to failing to take genuine steps are at the court’s discretion and are in the nature of other failures to comply with the rules of the court, such as appropriate interlocutory orders and orders as to costs. Examples of alternative steps include mediation, conciliation, expert appraisal, early mutual evaluation and arbitration. Less formal processes, including simple offers to negotiate and the timely exchange of information and documents, would also be captured by the requirement.
A potential problem arises in relation to the obligation imposed upon lawyers to advise claims as to compliance with the requirement. The bill provides that the lawyer must not only advise but also assist clients to comply. Costs may be ordered against lawyers personally if they fail to comply with this obligation. Lawyers already have a duty to assist their clients and, where the client accepts the advice, restating it adds nothing. The question, however, arises as to the scope of the obligation upon a legal representative to assist a party to comply with its duty in circumstances in which a party chooses to conduct the proceeding in a manner which may not be in compliance with a duty imposed upon the client.
In conclusion, it is important to note that this bill does not prescribe specific steps to be undertaken. It is about flexibility to enable parties to turn their minds to what they can do to attempt to resolve the dispute before it reaches the courts—I think something that everyone would agree is a sensible outcome. Whilst the coalition support the bill in principle, we reserve the right to move amendments pending the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee’s report, which is being undertaken at the moment.
I speak in support of the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010. About five per cent of cases, whether it is in the Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Court or the supreme or district courts, ever get to a final hearing. Ninety-five per cent of cases are resolved either at pre-institution stage or during the course of conciliation conferences, mediation, collaborative law methods and simply negotiating on a without-prejudice basis by correspondence or through face-to-face meetings at solicitor’s or litigant’s premises.
But there are cases that get to a final hearing. Sometimes litigants want their day in court and it is necessary because weighty matters, in terms of people’s liberty, property and rights, are at risk. When it is a matter concerning the Federal Magistrates Court, which often deals with family law matters, it relates to children, not just property. When it deals with issues relating to the care, welfare and development of children, it is quite common for people to be passionate and to want to pursue their rights and have their final say before a federal magistrate. That is okay, but they must make bona fide efforts and attempts to resolve litigation before it starts. It should not get to the stage where you say that we have litigation between people. In various pieces of legislation, particularly the Family Law Act, there are very well set out courses of alternative dispute resolution processes, whether they be conciliation conferences or pretrial conferences or whether it be mediation conducted at family relationship centres where there is a requirement to file a certificate or a notice in court prior to the institution of proceedings. Only in circumstances where there is child abduction, where it is an urgent ex parte matter or where there is egregious domestic violence are those requirements waived—and they are exceptions.
The legislation before this chamber deals with encouraging litigants not to have obstacles to the institution of proceedings but to make a bona fide, or genuine, attempt to resolve the matter and to bring to the notice of, say, the Federal Magistrates Court what attempts have been made to resolve the matter, so as to get out of the adversarial culture and resolve issues. It is better for our community and it is better for individuals, their companies and their families if they can take steps to settle matters.
In Ipswich there is a family relationship centre, and prior to speaking with Relationships Australia last week I attended their premises to discuss how they are going. I intend to go back and be involved in a reference group. In my first term I was involved with a reference group that dealt with issues concerning grandparents and with their rights and their concerns for their grandchildren in circumstances where they did not have any parental rights but wanted to have contact with their grandchildren. So I commend the previous government for what they did to establish family relationship centres. That was a good initiative and a good way to try to resolve matters. What we are talking about in this legislation before the chamber is not forcing people to go down that road—and there are plenty of roads for alternative dispute resolution—but to get them to say, upon getting advice from their lawyer, ‘What way we can take and what efforts can we make to resolve this matter?’ That brings it to the attention of the courts.
Turning people’s minds to resolution is often difficult. I practised as a lawyer for more than 20 years before coming here. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, you and I first met at a settlement of a conveyance in Ipswich when you were in private practice and I was a junior articled law clerk. You might recall you tried to convert me to the conservative cause at that settlement, but I was not prepared to go down that road to ruin, so I stayed on the progressive side of politics! This is an important way to try to resolve disputes. It is important that we do resolve disputes, because not every form of legal proceeding or activity involves a conveyance like the one that you and I first met over. Many times it involves a civil dispute.
The bill does not prescribe that you have to go off to a family relationship centre, but it does prescribe that you have to consider and take steps to facilitate this process. I think what will happen is that, as a result of this legislation, people will turn their minds to going to family relationship centres or engaging a mediator, an arbitrator or someone to try to resolve matters. I think we will have more without-prejudice conferences between lawyers and their clients to try to resolve matters, because this legislation does not have just a practical effect; there is an aspirational aspect to the legislation to say, ‘Let’s avoid litigation and let’s resolve it.’
So there are some really practical steps that have to be undertaken. The lawyers have a duty to advise their clients to make genuine attempts to resolve it. Then those clients have to sign off. A ‘genuine attempt’ statement has to be signed by them as an applicant before they institute proceedings, and then a respondent has to do likewise and tell the court that. The consequences of that are that they have to put in writing what steps they had to take and to turn their minds to how to resolve it. It is a key aspect of their obligation, and there are legal obligations on their lawyers and the litigants. There is potential for costs orders if people do not do it.
You might think that is pretty draconian and authoritarian, but you will find, for example, that in the Family Court rules or the rules of the Federal Magistrates Court there are similar onuses upon lawyers and litigants to think that way as well. If they do not take steps, judges and federal magistrates can already impose costs orders against litigants or against lawyers who fail in their obligations to their clients. I do not have a problem with that. I also do not have a problem with us keeping in place the case management systems and powers that exist in the Federal Magistrates Court as well.
I think there are exclusions here, and they are sensible exclusions, on certain legislation. I mentioned before the kinds of things that are excluded: you are talking about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Copyright Tribunal and the Migration Review Tribunal. There are also other courts that are excluded and other legislation that is excluded. For instance, I mentioned before the Family Law Act. There are already really set pre-institution processes in place that force people to negotiate together at, say, family relationship centres.
There are exceptions to lodging the ‘genuine attempt’ statements—for example, if it is an urgent ex parte matter. I can think of an Anton Piller-type order or other circumstances where there are enforcement proceedings involved and where you do not have to file this type of statement. But generally people need to. This bill has a worthy aspect to it, because I think it will reduce the cost to litigants. Lawyers have enough areas of law to enrich themselves, to prosper and to continue to act in the best interests of their practices, the public, their community and their families without going to court.
In my experience, most lawyers try to resolve the case. There is a mythology out there that most lawyers simply want to make money by forcing people into expensive court proceedings. That is not the reality. That might play out well in the Daily Telegraph, the Australian Financial Review or the Courier Mail, but that is not the reality on the ground, because most litigation lawyers, whether in family law, civil proceedings, criminal matters or personal injuries actions, want to resolve the case, because they know it is in the best interests of their clients and their community. They want to get on with other aspects of their legal practice. This legislation has a worthy aspect that says to litigants, ‘We want you to resolve this matter if at all possible before you go down the expensive road of engaging in more litigation which could involve expert evidence, which is costly; barrister engagement, which is costly as well; and engaging the taxpayers’ dollars in litigation that has an impact upon all of us.’ So the objectives of this bill are worthy and are to be commended, and the Attorney-General is to be commended for this legislation being in this chamber. I commend the legislation to the House.
in reply—By way of summing up and responding to the debate on the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010, I thank members for their contributions to the debate today. In particular I thank the member for Blair, who always brings a sound contribution to matters of legal practice. He was himself a practitioner for many years—not that he is that old—and has considerable experience.
This Civil Dispute Resolution Bill is an important step towards improved access to justice. It will help ensure that the mechanisms available to people and businesses for resolving disputes are reasonable, lawful and fair, and proportionate to the costs at issue. Members’ comments today echo the broad consultation that the government has already initiated in relation to improving the justice system. These include national consultations taken by the government’s Access to Justice Taskforce in relation to its 2009 report, A strategic framework for access to justice in the federal civil justice system, and by the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council in relation to its 2009 report, The resolve to resolve. That report recommended the enactment of genuine steps and this bill does that.
As members will know, the government are improving access to justice on a number of fronts, including through measures such as this bill, which complement the significant reforms to the Federal Court’s case management powers enacted last year. But we are also acting to improve other aspects of the justice system, including through the reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission to explore options to improve the discovery process. As any lawyer will know, discovery is often the single largest cost associated with litigation. But our reforms do not just focus on the courts or lawyers; we have also successfully negotiated with the states and territories for a national partnership agreement on legal aid with a focus on early intervention and better access to information and services for ordinary Australians. Significantly, the government have made support for legal assistance a priority with the injection of $154 million of legal aid funding in the last budget. This includes $92.3 million for legal aid, $34.9 million for Indigenous legal aid and $26.8 million for community legal services. These are all measures of which the government are particularly proud. I commend the bill to the House, and thank honourable members for their contribution.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Ms King:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010 seeks to implement a reform agreed by COAG on 3 July 2008. Specifically, these amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 seek the recognition by Food Standards Australia New Zealand of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, residue risk assessment and the promulgation of the resulting maximum residue limits in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code—the food code. What that means is a reduction of duplication. At present, we have two bodies. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority sets maximum residue limits and has a prescribed use for using pesticides specifically, so that they can be used in a safe way on crops. But in order for food to enter the food supply, it is Food Standards Australia New Zealand that actually sets what might be different maximum residue limits.
There is a compliance cost associated with this for primary producers. This is a very sensible reform. The present situation is that Food Standards Australia New Zealand and APVMA prescribe separate limits on agriculture veterinary chemical residues in food. So where a primary producer may use a particular chemical product on their crops and livestock in accordance with the relevant APVMA product registration or permit, they might not legally be able to sell the treated produce where there is no corresponding MRL in the food code preventing its sale. So this bill streamlines the current regulatory process. It reduces the regulation on business by government and removes duplication.
These reforms stem from a Howard government initiative designed to reduce red tape on business. In 2005, a task force was established to identify practical options for alleviating the compliance burden on business from Commonwealth government regulation. Its final report recommended that COAG should establish a high-level task force to develop an integrated national chemicals policy. At the time, the coalition recognised that there were overlaps and inconsistencies in a number of regulatory hotspots, in particular chemicals and plastics.
The Productivity Commission undertook an inquiry into chemicals and plastics regulation. They released an interim report which recommended, among other things, avoiding duplication of the setting of MRLs by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the APVMA by enabling the MRLs which are established by the APVMA to be automatically incorporated into the food code.
This Productivity Commission recommendation was adopted by COAG on 3 July 2008. The coalition supports this bill. It will be welcomed by primary producers and it will be welcomed by groups such as the National Farmers Federation, by pastoralists and by graziers associations. Our only question is: why has it taken two years to get to this point of actually presenting the legislation to parliament? Why two years after a no-brainer? The Productivity Commission said, ‘This can be done quickly,’ and COAG agreed, yet it has taken two years to get to this point. Perhaps this is one of the bills which were slowed up when Kevin Rudd was in his control freak phase. The government needs to explain why it has delayed two years in implementing these reforms.
This bill was introduced in the dying days of the last parliament and was referred to a Senate committee to allow stakeholders an opportunity to put forward any concerns they may have had, including any public health and safety concerns. Based on the evidence provided during that Senate inquiry, the committee was satisfied that the proposed legislation would not increase the risk to human health or safety. In fact, it was the committee’s opinion that there would be an overall gain as a result of streamlining the current regulatory process.
As it stands now, stakeholders support the legislative change to remove the inconsistencies between those two regulatory bodies with regard to the MRLs. This is about synchronising the two regulatory systems to reduce the regulatory burden on primary producers without any trade-off in human safety. This bill achieves that end. The coalition continues to support improving efficiency of government regulation and reducing red tape on small businesses, in particular primary producers. That is why we support this bill.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this very important bill, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010, which I am happy to say is supported by everyone in this parliament. There is no opposition because it is a good bill. It is a flow-on and reduces the regulatory burden on business, ensuring that we remove duplication and administrative burdens where we can and that regulations match what happens in practice, particularly at the farm gate. This bill amends the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 and implements a reform that was agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in late 2008. It is really part of a broader agenda which this government has brought forward—that is, a seamless national economy. If we are to compete internationally, if our primary producers are to have every advantage that government can provide, we need to play our part not only by reducing the regulatory burden but by creating a seamless national economy, ensuring that we remove overlaps or duplication across departmental regulations so that what happens in practice is the same as what is needed to happen in public health regulation.
These reforms call for the recognition of domestically grown produce by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to improve the residue risk assessment and promulgation of the resulting maximum residue limits to the Food Standards Code. This bill addresses some of the deficiencies in the FSANZ annual reporting requirements and also corrects some minor inconsistencies. The objective of the amendments is to eliminate that duplicate administrative process between FSANZ and APVMA and the conflict in maximum residue limits without compromising public health. Public health is obviously a primary concern but you might have found—without these amendments being brought in to make the necessary changes—that, while herbicides, pesticides or other chemicals a primary producer uses may be legal, they may not meet the food standards requirements, which would mean that farmers might not be able to sell their produce. There is an inconsistency there which needs to be sorted, and it is to be done through these amendments.
The maximum residue limit is the highest concentration of a residue of a particular agricultural or veterinary chemical that is legally permitted in food or animal feed. APVMA sets that maximum residue limit in the course of approving registrations and permits for specific chemical products which reflect the residue resulting from those which would be used on crops or livestock.
The Food Standards Code also includes a corresponding maximum residue limits standard, which reflects the levels permitted in the food that is available for sale. In today’s world where everything is global, it is important that we have the right standards, that they are consistent and match across agencies because there is such availability of produce from different parts not only of the country but of the globe. In the interests of public health, it is important to get those standards right.
Another aim of this reform is to remove a specific time lag which exists between getting any standards gazetted and prescribed and in the promulgation of corresponding maximum residue limits standards into the Food Standards Code. There is a time lag and this can cause some confusion or create a circumstance where a primary producer would use a particular chemical legally only to find that, because of the time lag as the crop matures or the animals are ready for the lot, they can no longer sell those products, which would be unacceptable. It is in the interests of primary producers that we get the standards right and remove the time lag. This is all done in conjunction with making sure that the standards are of the highest level. This will maintain the current degree of scientific rigour and assessment required before a decision on a maximum residue limits standard may be made, thereby ensuring the protection of public health and safety.
There is a financial impact with these changes. The reform agreed by COAG was done without additional funding, so the funding has to be transferred from one organisation to the next—from Food Standards Australia New Zealand to APVMA. The funding associated with these two functions should be transferred as appropriate and in accordance with the roles each body now plays. The quantum of that funding will be agreed by the ministers of the day.
There are also a range of amendments relating to annual reporting requirements which correct some minor inconsistencies. The need to do this arises simply from the relatively complex amendments made to the FSANZ Act back in mid-2007. This was subsequently identified by the Department of Health and Ageing, which identified a number of gaps. The amendments are required to ensure that there is effective monitoring of the act itself. In terms of timing sensitivities, the reforms should not be delayed any further. We need to resolve a number of legal issues with regard to the respective roles that the Food Standards Australia New Zealand and APVMA standards play. Dealing with them should be considered urgent now, as we have them before us. Any additional delay would actually create a disadvantage for primary producers. I know that primary producers are waiting for the outcome of these amendments so that they can get on with their business. These are good amendments that do the right thing in streamlining a number of approval processes. The legislation is also about eliminating duplicative regulation and removing the red-tape burden but at the same time not jeopardising the protection of public health in the process. This is about better integration and the very important role that these two regulatory agencies play. I know it is well supported by everybody in this place and I recommend the legislation to the House.
The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010 had its origin in the 42nd Parliament. It has a stated purpose to implement a reform designed to streamline current regulatory processes which create circumstances whereby a primary producer may legally use a particular chemical product on their crops and livestock but may not legally be able to sell the treated produce in the domestic market. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee held an inquiry into the proposed legislation and found that it is expected to improve the efficiency with which the approval of chemical products can occur. I do welcome this bill. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am very particular about food standards in our country and, indeed, anything we export to other countries. I have spoken many times in this place on the importance of labelling, most recently on Monday, but we must make sure that we are not disadvantaging our producers by creating unnecessary red tape.
Submissions to the Senate committee inquiry noted that the delay between the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority applying to Food Standards Australia New Zealand to include a maximum residue limit in the food code averaged approximately 12 months. CropLife and the Animal Health Alliance informed the committee that their members had experienced waits of up to 18 months. During this time it would be legal for a farmer to use the particular chemical product but not to sell the treated produce. This delay causes significant problems for users of chemical products because a farmer may legally purchase a chemical that has been assessed as safe for use by the APVMA and use that product in accordance with the label directions but ultimately find that he or she is not able to sell their produce because the APVMA determined maximum residue limit is yet to be adopted within the Food Standards Code.
It is important to note that agvet chemicals are used by farmers when needed to protect crops and animals from a wide variety of pests, weeds and diseases. In Australia, agvet chemical products are strictly regulated by state and federal government agencies to protect human health, safety, trade and, of course, the environment—all very important things for us to be doing. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority conduct a rigorous scientific risk assessment on each new agvet chemical product before it can be approved for use in Australia. The assessment process determines whether the agvet chemical product is effective and safe with respect to people, animals and the environment and does not pose a trade risk. As part of this process, the APVMA also approves agvet chemical product labels which contain instructions on how to use the product correctly and safely.
I speak to the many great food producers in the electorate of Pearce. They are broadacre wheat and sheep farmers, market gardeners, large export fruit growers and everything in between. They grow olives, table grapes and wine grapes. A large number of products are grown and produced in the electorate of Pearce. I know my growers are very mindful of the need to protect human health and protect the environment. It is in their interests that they continue to safeguard both human health and the environment.
The member for Kingston, who is in the House today, moved a motion on food labelling on Monday. When speaking to that motion and on many occasions previously I strongly advocated measures to make it easier for Australian food producers to sell their goods. It is now more than ever essential that we as legislators work to make this possible as our food producers have never done it tougher. To add to the usual mix of difficulty for food producers in Australia we now of course have the rising value of the dollar, which for some people is a benefit but for others wishing to export their products in a tough and competitive international marketplace it is not.
A useful illustration of how difficult it is for our food producers is the 2009 cash flow estimates that a farmer in my electorate kindly made available to me. I have mentioned these figures before but they are worth mentioning again. Return rates for local farmers are quite slim. Sometimes they are as little as 3.5 per cent or below. I do not think we would see too many bankers in Australia being prepared to work long hours for such a low return and with all the vagaries of the weather with droughts and so on.
Based on a 5,000-hectare wheat belt cropping and wool property, my constituent calculated a notional $40.84 profit per hectare, but when farmers’ expenses, taxation, repayments and capital expenditure are taken into account, assuming repayments are kept to a minimum, the farmers expect to lose $36.06 per hectare. With such losses continuing over time, local farming is increasingly becoming unsustainable. A number of forces contribute to this worrying outcome. Many of them are not controllable by government, but this amendment bill is certainly one positive measure we can make on behalf of Australia’s primary producers, and every effort should be made to support them where it is safe to do so. Of course, I believe the emphasis in terms of food production should always be on the safety of that food for human consumption.
Consumers have consistently shown a willingness to vote with their wallets in support of local produce that is ethically grown, harvested and manufactured by environmentally conscious producers where such items are easily identified. The public enthusiasm is there. It is now up to government to show its political will and make good on this significant issue.
Safety was covered quite extensively in this Senate committee report. In his submission the Hon. Bob Such MP did not oppose the legislation but did call for the use of chemicals and pesticides to be kept to an absolute minimum and recommended increased provision of information about the use of chemicals on food products. The APVMA, Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Department of Health and Ageing were of the opinion that the bill would not result in an increased risk to human health and safety. The APVMA informed the committee that all current dietary exposure measures would remain the same. I think it is important to highlight that for those who may think that this in some way reduces the safety of the food that they consume.
The dietary assessment would be undertaken by APVMA and checked by Food Standards Australia New Zealand, as is currently the case, with FSANZ undertaking its own dietary assessment if needed. Food Standards Australia New Zealand made a similar point in its submission, stating that ‘the bill removes duplication of administrative processes but the scientific assessment required to ensure the safety to human health and the environment remains unchanged’. The code will retain its current structure whereby no chemical residue in food is legal unless there is a relevant prescribed MRL standard in the code. MRLs are specific to the chemical product and to the produce on which the product may be used. The ministerial council will still have the power to request a review of any food standard, including MRLs, and FSANZ will still be responsible for preparing or overseeing the dietary modelling used to determine the appropriateness of an MRL—that is, the maximum residue limits, for those who are not used to the acronyms.
The department of health further noted in their submission that ‘the food code would retain its current structure under which no chemical residues in food would be legal without a relevant approved MRL’. Food Standards Australia New Zealand retains the power to make urgent variations to the food code for the purpose of protecting public health and safety. The ministerial council is also able to request a review of any food standard, including an MRL standard. In more than 10 years of operation, Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the ministerial council have never disagreed with an MRL proposed by the APVMA on the basis of public health and safety.
In its conclusion the committee said it was satisfied that the proposed legislation will not increase risks to human health and safety. Given the efficiency gains arising from the streamlining of the approval process and the absence of opposition to the proposed changes, the committee supported strongly the amendment to this legislation. So I think the public can be reassured, and we need in this place to reassure ourselves, that, along with these changes, we are indeed looking after the health of those who might consume these products.
One of the sore points in my electorate a few years ago revolved around current growers who had to meet the most rigorous standards in terms of any chemicals and pesticides they sprayed on their products. They were dismayed to learn that we have products being imported into this country where no such safeguards are required. The food is packaged in another country and then brought here and sold more cheaply than our producers can produce it, because we do require producers to go through a rigorous process. All of that adds to the cost of production, so anything we can do which removes red tape in a safe way has to be welcomed by those of us who represent food producers in our electorates.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I was very interested to read the Senate committee’s report and was reassured that the amendments we are passing in this place today have health and safety as an important keystone in this amending legislation.
Can I start by thanking those members who have taken part in the debate on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010: the member for Boothby, the member for Oxley and the member for Pearce. I acknowledge the longstanding interest and advocacy by the member for Pearce on the issue of food standards and also her contribution on the notice of motion moved by the member for Kingston on food labelling, which I listened to with interest. I thank you for your contribution to that. I certainly note those contributions as we head into making some decisions once the labelling review is announced and I get a look at it in December.
The amendments to this bill are designed to reduce the level of unnecessarily and poorly designed regulation and its resulting negative impact on business. The bill does implement a reform agreed to by all states and territories through COAG as part of the seamless national economy reform agenda to streamline the process of setting maximum residue limits for chemicals in the Food Standards Code. I also note the bipartisan support from the opposition for this bill.
Specifically, this reform will address the delay and uncertainty for users of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, who are typically primary producers, which results in overlapping regulatory responsibilities for setting maximum residue limits of chemicals allowed to be present in food. These overlapping responsibilities mean that there has been a time lag of nine to 12 months—and, unfortunately, in some cases, as the member for Pearce stated, occasionally 18 months—between the APVMA establishing an MRL in relation to an agricultural or veterinary chemical product and when FSANZ is able to effect a corresponding modification into the Food Standards Code. The amendments contained in the bill streamline these processes by establishing the APVMA as the single decision maker for setting MRLs. Under the new system, the APVMA can use a decision on a maximum residue limit taken in the course of approving a chemical product registration or permit application to vary the maximum residue limit standard in the Food Standards Code.
FSANZ, as the scientific experts in food safety, will retain responsibilities for the dietary modelling that the APVMA will rely on to establish safe chemical residue limits. I do note that the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this legislation canvassed the issue of food safety and public health and safety extensively and concluded that there was no risk in this legislation at all. I want to thank the members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. I think it has brought out a number of issues in terms of primary producers which have been helpful to hear. These amendments do reduce duplicative administrative processes while retaining a no compromise approach to protecting public health and safety. They do demonstrate that the government is committed to identifying and taking action in areas where unnecessary or poorly designed regulation is impeding Australian business but also note the government’s absolute commitment to public health and safety. 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 30 September, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The coalition supports this bill in principle, subject to consideration of any potential recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The need for this bill has been highlighted by events in recent years. The failed terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas Day last year brought to attention the need for intelligence, law enforcement and other national security agencies to be both well resourced and well connected. There is a clear need to remove legislative barriers to interoperability and intelligence sharing, and this bill goes some way towards achieving this.
The bill is intended to enable the various security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to respond quickly to a threat, to share information and to operate effectively within their defined roles in multi-agency teams. The government has recently announced the establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Control Centre, which is the principal example of the interoperability sought to be facilitated by this bill. In particular, ASIO has expertise in areas that would assist law enforcement agencies to have access to information.
The bill will enable ASIO to provide assistance to those agencies in relation to telecommunications interception, technical support, logistics and analytical assistance. This assistance will be invaluable in combating serious organised crime and in urgent matters where people’s lives are at risk. In some circumstances telecommunications data may be obtained to find missing persons or to access stored communications of victims of crime whose consent cannot otherwise be obtained. Each of the security and intelligence agencies has its character or delimited areas of operation to ensure that powers entrusted to them are not abused.
The intention of the bill is not to authorise operation outside agencies’ charters but to permit cooperation for limited purposes so as to enhance interoperability and approved joint activities requiring information sharing. As noted in the explanatory memorandum, the bill will enable the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation to more closely cooperate and assist one another in the performance of their functions. The bill will facilitate these agencies being able to work together and harness resources in support of key national security priorities.
It is appropriate to note the hard work and serious efforts of our Australian security agencies and their outcomes in achieving to make Australia a safer place to live. Australia is privileged to boast a reputation as one of the safest nations in the world. May it always be so.
The bill is a step towards better utilising the talent and resources that will preserve the safety of Australian citizens. The coalition, as I have said before, supports this bill in principle; however, it foreshadows potential amendments pending the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
I rise today to also fully support the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill is another important step forward in protecting the Australian people. It will allow this country’s leading law enforcement agencies, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation to work cooperatively and effectively.
Prior to coming to this place I spent many years representing respective police jurisdictions across the country. As a consequence I have a very healthy respect for the work of the men and women of our police forces. I certainly have an undying appreciation for the work they do in making our country safe. Police officers in areas I was less familiar with, particularly in the intelligence areas, certainly have a very important job to do. Their job is ever changing and we must provide them with the necessary tools to do their job on behalf of the people of this country.
During my time with the Police Federation Australia I had a significant involvement in the early stages of some of the discussions about telecommunications intercepts. I know that, from a criminal point of view, it is certainly a very significant tool in combating not only organised crime but other aspects that police become involved in including issues of terrorism.
Clearly, across the broader perspective of securing the safety of the nation this aspect is absolutely crucial. Our law enforcement agencies require the development of equally sophisticated methods of accessing telephone intercepts because those we compete against, who are seeking to inflict or potentially inflict damage on this country and its people, are very sophisticated—the same sophistication as would be applied to the capabilities of organised crime. Those involved in planning aggressive acts against this country and its people are not lacking when it comes to intellectual ability with respect to communication systems. Therefore, we must ensure that our people who are charged with that vital responsibility of protecting Australia and its people have the necessary tools to do their job and do that job effectively.
That is why this piece of legislation is so important: to ensure greater cooperation between our respective agencies. As it stands now, under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act it is not possible for ASIO to intercept communications on behalf of smaller agencies which have limited interception abilities. Quite frankly, we cannot expect our law enforcement and security agencies to do all the things that we require of them if we insist on tying their hands behind their backs.
This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to allow ASIO to intercept on behalf of other agencies. It will also enable ASIO to provide the necessary range of technical and logistical assistance and support to other agencies which have obtained warrants to intercept communications. This will help facilitate a whole-of-government approach when we speak of national security.
It is not possible for any government to guarantee that Australia will be free from the threat of terrorism. But this government can guarantee that we will take all necessary and practical measures to combat the threat of terrorism. With the emerging threat of home-grown terrorism it is now more important than ever that our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the right tools and resources to assist them to identify terrorists and potential terrorist organisations, as well as the ability to take protective action.
One thing I would like to note is that our constituents do not see any great distinction between our different law enforcement agencies when it comes to the issue of national security. They simply want to know that things are happening and that they are going to be protected. They certainly are not going to go down and look for some dividing line between various agencies. They simply want protection for themselves and their families. I think that is quite an acceptable position for our constituents. It is certainly one that we need to have regard to, and we need to relieve some of the interjurisdictional burden when it comes to information sharing to ensure that our overall objectives are being achieved.
With this in mind, I fully support the bill and the amendments, which allow for greater flexibility of ASIO to share information that it has with other intelligence agencies within the broader national security community. Importantly, the amendments in this bill preserve the accountability framework which guarantees the way that agencies can acquire and rely on that provided information.
This bill does not extend the jurisdiction of the role of ASIO. The bill does not affect the distinction between law enforcement and intelligence functions. Arrests and prosecutions will remain within the province of the police and the prosecutorial agencies. ASIO’s primary function will remain the gathering and analysing of intelligence.
The bill also makes amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to improve the operations of that act. These amendments will mean that nominated carriers of service providers are required to regularly inform the Communications Access Coordinator of proposed changes to their service and networks which may affect the carrier’s ability to meet its legal obligation to assist interceptions for that agency.
As a parent, I can only imagine the fear and anxiety that must come when a child or family member goes missing. If I were ever faced with that horrible situation, I would expect that our police and our law enforcement agencies would do all that they possibly could to find the loved one. That is why I think it would be common sense to expect that everybody would fully support the thrust of this bill, which will provide support to our police in finding missing persons. The amendment will allow police to obtain and use telecommunications data such as phone records to assist the finding of a person or, regrettably, in some instances a victim. The amendments also give police access to the stored communications of victims of crime when the victim cannot be located or is unable to give consent to their communications being accessed.
Last year a young woman from Cecil Hills was lured by a communication through, in this case, Facebook—and I know that is beyond Australia’s jurisdiction—to meet with a person she thought was an animal rights activist, unfortunately just down the road from where I live. That person lured her there with a view to assaulting and murdering her, and that is what occurred. I know part of the investigation involved access to her phone records and that is the sort of thing that is being looked at in this legislation. It is not about what is carried on Facebook, which is beyond our jurisdiction, being an international server, but it is certainly about having access to the phone records of the victim in this case.
Regrettably, we all have stories about the way people have been pursued through electronic means. I have to say that this is not something I grew up with, but as a parent and grandparent it is something that I am very conscious of. I think that most parents out there would think that the thrust of this legislation, allowing law enforcement authorities to access stored material, text messages and all those sorts of things that will assist the police to locate missing persons as well as victims, is something that should be applauded.
I support the bill because it offers greater assistance to not only our intelligence agencies but also our police to do their work. It gives them greater tools, greater resources, without extending their jurisdiction to undertake what is expected of them within a modern community. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
in reply—By way of summing up, can I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access Act) 1979 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, as well as the Intelligence Services Act 2001. Its purpose is to facilitate greater cooperation, assistance and information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The inaugural National Security Statement, delivered to parliament on 4 December 2008, highlighted the need for a closer relationship between the agencies that make up the National Security Committee. The National Security Statement also acknowledged the critical need for the sharing of intelligence and data in the current security environment.
The failed terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines flight 253 on 25 December last year also highlighted the need for intelligence, law enforcement and other national security agencies to be well connected and the need to remove legislative barriers to interoperability and intelligent sharing. The National Security Statement, the government’s counterterrorism white paper, acknowledged that responding to modern national security threats requires an intelligence-led, coordinated effort across government. To achieve this, agencies, as I have said, must be well-connected and free from technical and other barriers to sharing relevant information and also expertise.
Vital information is less likely to fall through the gaps if agencies can draw on the expertise of others within law enforcement and national security communities. An example of this is the amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, which will provide for greater cooperation between Commonwealth and state interception agencies. Currently, under the interception act law enforcement agencies can seek the assistance of other law enforcement agencies in exercising an interception warrant. This ability has enabled smaller agencies with limited interception capability to rely on larger agencies to intercept on their behalf.
The bill will amend the interception act to enable the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to also intercept on behalf of other agencies. This will ensure that ASIO has greater flexibility to support whole-of-government efforts to protect our communities. The bill will also amend the ASIO Act and the Intelligence Services Act to enable Australia’s security and intelligence agencies to cooperate and assist one another more closely. Specifically, ASIO, the Defence Signals Directorate, the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service will, on request, be able to assist one another in the performance of their functions. The modern security environment requires an intelligence community that is well connected. Multi-agency teams and task forces, such as the Counter-Terrorism Control Centre that is based in ASIO, are an increasing feature of the national security landscape.
These amendments will facilitate greater interoperability in those multi-agency teams and will enable agencies to harness resources in support of key national security priorities. The bill also makes amendments to enhance intelligence sharing between intelligence agencies and the broader national security community. This bill will help to ensure that our national security agencies are able to work together in responding to our increasingly fluid and evolving national security environment. The bill also makes several amendments to the interception act that will improve the operation and responsiveness of the telecommunications interception regime. The bill amends the interception act to require carriers and service providers to inform the Communications Access Coordinator, which is currently a position held by a senior officer within the Attorney-General’s Department, of proposed changes that could significantly affect their ability to comply with their statutory obligation to assist interception agencies. This early notification will ensure that carriers and service providers can meet their obligations to assist and avoid the need for costly alterations once a change has been implemented.
The bill also includes amendments that will support police forces to find missing persons, as indicated by the member for Fowler in the story that he recounted to us, and to solve crimes where the victim cannot be found or cannot consent to their communications being accessed. The bill will also allow an interception agency to notify a delegated officer within the carrier, rather than the managing director, of the existence of a warrant. This removes administrative burdens upon managing directors of carriers in their provision of assistance under the interception act.
The bill makes several minor and technical changes to address formatting and typographical errors and to better reflect plain English drafting conclusions. In conclusion, ensuring that our national security law enforcement agencies have the ability to respond to threats to our national security is a key priority for this government and indeed for any Australian government. The measures contained in this bill build on the steps previously taken in this area to facilitate better interoperability and intelligence sharing between our law enforcement and national security agencies. By shaping and supporting our national security community we will strengthen the capacity of all agencies to protect our communities from criminal and other activities that threaten our national and personal wellbeing. 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.
Sitting suspended from 11.19 am to 11.40 am
Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Griffin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to lend comment to the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 after the bill was lost following the proroguing of parliament. This bill implements Labor’s 2007 election commitment to reconsider the unimplemented recommendations of the Clarke review of veterans’ entitlements. The review of veterans’ entitlements of course was conducted by the Hon. John Clarke QC and was completed in 2003. In 2004 the previous coalition government responded with a package of $236 million over five years. Building upon this in 2007 the Labor Party promised:
A Rudd Labor Government will give further consideration to recommendations of the Clarke Review of Veterans’ Entitlements that were not acted upon by the Howard Government. This process will also give early priority to recommendations relating to those Australian participants in the British Commonwealth Occupational Force in Japan and Defence participants in the atomic tests in Australia.
That was on page 22 of Labor’s Plan for Veterans’ Affairs.
Subsequently, on 9 September 2008 the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs issued a press release titled Government kicks off Clarke review nuclear veterans and BCOF a priority. Submissions from veterans about unimplemented recommendations were due by 1 December 2009. The recommendations of the re-review of the Clarke review—lots of reviews there—were delivered to Minister Griffin in February 2009. It is disappointing that it took more than 30 months from the election of the government and 15 months from the time the report was delivered to the minister for any action on those recommendations. However I am pleased that the government has sought to bring the bill back unamended after it was prorogued with the parliament.
In terms of specific measures, in the 2010-2011 budget the Rudd Labor government announced $36 million over four years to implement the re-reviewed recommendations of the Clarke review. As part of this, the government announced three recommendations were accepted and acted upon, four had been accepted, four deferred for further consideration, 22 referred to review of military compensation acts, and 12 rejected for a second time. It is disappointing that the government had not sought with the re-introduction of the bill to relook at some of those provisions that they had either deferred for further consideration or outright rejected. Recommendations relating to the British Commonwealth Occupational Force veterans have been further delayed, the government stating that it proposes to defer its response to these recommendations to allow further examination and discussion within the government and with the Defence Nature of Service review team. May I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, that since parliament was prorogued in August there has been plenty of time to review those recommendations and to allow for further examination.
Disappointingly, there is also no time line for the completion of this further review. The Rudd Labor government made a big noise about correcting the service of BCOF veterans under the review of the Clarke review, yet here we are waiting 30 months, plus now another five or six since the election commenced, and we are still seeing three recommendations going off to another review—or a re-review of the re-review of the Clarke review—with no firm timetable for delivery. I think I can speak for everyone in the parliament that perhaps we do not need any more re-reviews of the re-review of the Clarke review; we just need someone to do something.
There are 2,700 aged veterans and their families, not to mention the rest of the nation, the parliament and, I suspect, most of Labor’s side of parliament, who are none the wiser about the commitment that Labor made to them at the 2007 election and that was still in force at the 2010 election. Notwithstanding that, there are five schedules. Schedule 1, relates to the British nuclear test recommendation 45 of the Clarke review. It states that the Australian government will reclassify the service of British nuclear test defence service veterans to an equivalent hazardous non-war like status. This reclassification has an appropriation cost of $23.4 million over four years. Eligible ex-defence personnel will be able to access disability pensions, war widow(er) pensions and, where applicable, the gold card. In 2006 the previous coalition government extended coverage of the white card to all ex-defence and civilian personnel who were involved in the tests. White card coverage will remain for civilian personnel who were not ex-defence personnel. Under changes to the VEA, the Veterans Entitlements’ Act 1986, a new classification of service will be inserted into the act to reflect this spirit of the Clarke review recommendation.
Schedule 2 looks at recommendation 31a of the Clarke review. The Australian government will seek to reclassify the service of submarine special operations undertaken between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992 as ‘qualifying’ and ‘operational’ service. This change will entitle them to access to assets- and means-tested service pension at age 60, disability pension, war widow(er) pension and the gold card at age 70. The Rudd Labor government’s response states:
… based on advice from the Department of Defence, for certain submarine special operations between 1978 and 1992 where submariners and others are eligible for the award of the Australian Service Medal with the Submarine Special Operations Clasp, the Government will seek to amend the VEA to extend operational and qualifying service. This goes further than the Clarke Review—
to their credit—
and grants Service Pension at age 60, the Gold Card at age 70 and disability pension with the reasonable hypothesis test.
The Naval Association of Australia strongly supports the extended classification and, frankly, so do I. For anyone who has not spent time in the now decommissioned Oberon submarines, which is what we are talking about, imagine dressing yourself in one big greasy oily rag and staying that way for months at a time, while conducting significant operations in our region. They are the conditions that these men served under. So I congratulate the government for its foresight in this area.
Schedule 3 deals with service in Thailand. The Australian government will again reclassify certain service between 31 May 1962 and 27 July 1962 in north-east Thailand at Ubon as ‘qualifying service’. This will entitle eligible veterans access to service pensions at age 60, the gold card at age 70, on top of existing entitlements to disability and war widow(er) pensions. This reclassification is not due to a specific recommendation in the Clarke review—again to the government’s credit. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel at the time said in a press release on 11 May 2010 that this item was not in response to the Clarke review but a decision taken by the government.
It is instructive to look at the history of this service to understand, perhaps, a little of where the government came from in its decision. Throughout the sixties, Australian service personnel were stationed throughout South-East Asia and were involved in conflicts in Malaya and Indonesia. Indeed, in a Malayan emergency 36 Australian service personnel were killed—the first Australian deaths in action since the cessation of World War II. After 1965, personnel were involved in the Vietnam War through the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam. In May 1962, the 79th Squadron from the Royal Australian Air Force was dispatched to north-east Thailand to protect the territorial integrity of Thailand. At the time of their dispatch, I think it is fair to say that there were few, if any, facilities at Ubon. By the end of July, more permanent facilities had begun to be constructed, but prior to that they were literally eking a living out of the jungle. Although personnel remained at Ubon until 1968, this particular two months of service has been reclassified due to the ‘potential risk from the activities of hostile forces and dissident elements’, not to mention living in particularly parlous circumstances. I think schedule 3 receives universal acclamation from the parliament in what it is seeking to do.
Schedule 4 of the bill deals with section 60 of the Clarke review. The Australian government is seeking to correct an anomaly in the VE Act to enable certain British Commonwealth and allied veterans who were aged between 18 and 21 at the time of enlistment in the Commonwealth or allied defence force to access the Australian repatriation system. Under the VE Act, British Commonwealth and allied veterans may be eligible for pensions and other benefits if they have eligible service with the Commonwealth or allied defence forces and if they had Australian domicile immediately prior to their enlistment in that defence force. It, indeed, makes sense to support that.
Schedule 5 deals with the effect of war widows and widowers entering into a de facto relationship. Recommendation 54 of the Clarke review looks at the Australian government removing an entitlement from war widows or widowers who claim a war widow or widower pension after entering a marriage-like—de facto—relationship. Consequently the government will require eligible war widows or widowers to claim a war widow or widower pension before they enter a new relationship in order to qualify for their pension. Under current legislation, a war widow or widower who applies for a war widow or widower pension after marrying or remarrying is not entitled to a pension. However, a war widow or widower who enters a marriage-like relationship, including a de facto one, can still apply for that pension. Whilst this change is prospective—so no current war widows or widowers will be affected by this change—it does seek to make some assumptions about the way people live their lives. I note the government is seeking to save $1.4 million over four years, denying approximately 10 new applications per year.
Again, looking at the history of this may be instructive. In 1984, the Hawke government ‘reinstated’ pensions to married or remarried war widows who, until then, lost their pension upon remarriage. This change applied from 1984 and was not retrospective. In 2001, the previous coalition government broadened this 1984 change to any married or remarried war widow who lost their pension as a result of their marriage or remarriage after applying for—and being granted—a war widow pension. Justice Clarke recommended, inter alia, that no change to present arrangements be made, including the broadening of the base of war widow and widower pensions to people who applied after marriage. The war widow and widower pension is a compensation payment and is not means tested. It is paid at the rate of $703.90 per fortnight and some eligible war widows and widowers may also receive an income support supplement. This change has the support of the veterans and ex-service community, including the War Widows’ Guild of Australia and Legacy. My view, for what it is worth, remains that a war widow or widower remains a war widow or widower regardless if they are remarried or move into a de facto relationship. I cite a tremendous lady, Nicole Pearce, whose husband, David ‘Poppy’ Pearce, was tragically killed in Afghanistan very early in the conflict. Regardless of how she moves forward in her life, she remains a war widow. Her husband was killed in combat operations. Her two small daughters were there when her husband was buried and I see them each year and talk to them on the anniversary of her husband’s death, 9 October. Regardless of how she chooses to move forward in her life, she remains a war widow and this nation still has a debt to pay to her. Whilst accepting Justice Clarke’s recommendations and whilst accepting what the government is doing with this schedule, I point out that my comments are simply a reflection of a personal view, that a war widow will always remain a war widow. Otherwise I conclude my comments with respect to this veterans bill before it moves back to the House.
I speak in support of the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010. At the beginning of this speech, I wish to pay tribute to the former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin, the member for Bruce, particularly for his support of veterans in the Ipswich and West Moreton community in the electorate of Blair. It was at the Ipswich RSL that he announced that we would undertake a parliamentary inquiry into the deseal/reseal program which resulted in what I would call the Bevis parliamentary committee recommendations that were taken up and brought about some degree of justice for the people—in the Ipswich and West Moreton area and across Queensland and elsewhere—who worked in the deseal/reseal area. He also attended upon my community of Ipswich and conducted a forum on a number of issues raised by people in the veterans community as well as by serving RAAF personnel at the Amberley base. So I pay tribute to him and say that the legislation that we are dealing with here today is the work of him, his staff and his department and I thank him for it. It has been taken up, of course, by the new minister, the honourable member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon.
This legislation picks up from where it was before the parliament was prorogued and, as the member for Fadden outlined in very great detail by way of schedules, makes a number of amendments with respect to the service of notices, dealing with Australian participants in British nuclear tests, dealing with dependants of war veterans, and dealing with the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme in relation to the collection of a state emergency service levy from policyholders—which, by the way, will have no impact on the bottom line of the budget. It also protects the integrity of our regimes with respect to Specialist Medical Review Council matters and deals with compensation and the interests of those who receive it under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act by making sure that compensation can be paid into bank accounts in the recipients’ names.
The member for Fadden correctly, and quite eloquently actually, outlined by way of the schedules what this legislation contains. It is really a plethora of amendments through which there are significant reforms to the legislation. Extending nuclear test participant eligibility to a number of people who served during the British nuclear tests at Maralinga is credible and worthy, and the government is to be commended for it. While I am on that subject, I wish to pay tribute to a local advocate in my area, a guy called Merv Kleindon, who lives in Ipswich in the One Mile-Leichhardt community and has been such an advocate for everyone who worked in that program back in the fifties and beyond. A number of Indigenous people were also exposed to the effects of radioactivity, as were the service personnel who were engaged in working on the planes that went through the area. People like Merv had advocated for justice not just for Indigenous people and not just for people who worked in the military but for others, such as the Australian Protective Service officers, covered by the legislation here, and other participants who suffered ill health as a result of their involvement in the British nuclear tests. We see in this bill the extension of eligibility for non-liability health care under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act for those people involved in British nuclear tests between 20 October 1984 to 30 June 1988 who now suffer malignant neoplasia. Many people were involved who were exposed to activities in the past which should not have happened.
There are other changes here in the legislation with respect to notices. For instance, Federal Court decisions following the absence of provisions in Commonwealth legislation setting out the requirements of service of written notice involving the operations of the act and the need for the Acts Interpretation Act, which provides for service on a person by sending it to the residential address, impacted on the current legislation. Amendment to the proposed legislation will extend the period of time for lodgement of claims and will provide benefits by making the statute clearer in many areas that are currently ambiguous under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. Sometimes when legislation is passed we see notice provisions in relation to one piece of legislation that do not quite marry, say, with the Acts Interpretation Act, but what we are doing here is making improvements in that regard.
As I said before, the bill enables Defence Service Homes Insurance to collect a state emergency services levy from policy holders in New South Wales to assist the New South Wales Labor government with the cost of providing emergency services in that state. This is done throughout the country in various places, particularly New South Wales, and there will be no impact on the bottom line here. This is a sensible amendment in the circumstances and I commend the minister for that.
The bill also enhances the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Council by making it clear that that particular council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical Authority so as not to amend a statement of principles—another worthy thing in the circumstances. There are changes aplenty in this legislation and they constitute a myriad of improvements. I was intending to speak at length on each and every one but the member for Fadden outlined the changes very clearly in his speech, for which he should be thanked. I also thank him for recognising at times where we have taken very just and humane and decent steps to help people who have been the recipients of injustice.
I thank the government for what it undertook and for looking at the review of veterans’ entitlements and looking at the recommendations of Justice Clarke. They have certainly had an impact in my area and, as I say, with respect to the work of the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I could not have asked for more cooperation in my community, particularly with respect to the Clarke review but also in relation to the deseal-reseal issue. It made a big impact locally in my electorate.
This legislation, again with important amendments, will impact to the benefit of the Australian community in terms of certainty of statutory interpretation, notice provisions, and making sure the legislation that deals with our veterans, who should be honoured, deals with them in a just and humane way.
I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010. I state from the outset that the coalition supports this bill, which makes a number of minor amendments to legislation affecting the veteran community. Despite this bill having been presented in November of last year, the legislation has been continually pushed aside and delayed. This is disappointing; however, I am pleased to have this opportunity in the House to speak about issues that are important to the veteran community.
The Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 contains eight parts. I will focus briefly on each part of the bill. Part 1 of the bill makes amendments to the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests Treatment Act 2006. This legislation was passed in the parliament in 2006 under the previous coalition government. The act provided a white card to veterans of British nuclear testing in Western Australia and South Australia. It covered not only defence personnel but also guards and other employees who worked on the sites until the 1990s. The legislation passed in 2006 was intended to benefit up to 5,500 veterans and former public servants. This amendment extends the coverage to Australian Protective Service officers who served on the site between 1984 and 1988. They were inadvertently left out as a result of other acts and the situation of the Australian Federal Police. I am pleased that this amendment is being made now.
The government has created a new classification for veterans’ service—British nuclear test defence service—equivalent to hazardous non-warlike service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This will enable eligible participants to access disability pensions and war widower pensions where applicable. This new classification is in response to the Rudd Labor government’s re-review of the Clarke review, which sat on the minister’s desk for 15 months after being released publicly.
Part 2 of this bill amends the Defence Service Homes Act to allow the Commonwealth to make payment to the state or a state authority where, under a law of the state, a person carrying on in that state the business of insuring against the risk of loss of or damage to property is liable to make payments to the state or a state authority to assist in meeting the costs of the state emergency services of that state. The New South Wales state Labor government has decided to place a levy on insurance policies held in that state to meet the costs of operating the State Emergency Service. This is a tax grab from a cash-strapped state Labor government, penalising insurance policyholders with a tax.
Whilst the coalition has opposed this new tax in New South Wales, the constitution largely requires the federal parliament to allow this legislative change to pass. It is not pleasing, nor does it seem fair, that veterans and defence personnel who have insurance policies in the state of New South Wales are unfairly charged a levy, expected to be around $10 per annum, to meet what should be a cost met through other revenue sources. There has been some suggestion that the cost for insurance companies to charge this levy will be around $20 million, with these costs also being passed on to holders of insurance policies.
This is an open-ended amendment which allows any state to charge an SES levy and for the Defence Homes Insurance Service to transfer revenue raised for this purpose to the relevant state government. This change in effect means that federal parliamentary approval will not be required should Victoria or Queensland also decide to levy the charge. This amendment gives that approval in advance. I am disappointed that this new levy is being put in place. This is additional evidence of the need for a new coalition government in New South Wales headed by Barry O’Farrell.
Part 3 of the legislation extends the period in which claims for travel expenses may be lodged with the department. Specifically, the amendment extends the time limit for the lodgement of a claim for non-treatment related travel expenses from three months to 12 months. That will align the time limit with that already available for travel expenses for obtaining treatment. The amendment also introduces to each of the non-treatment travel categories a further extension to the 12-month time limit for exceptional circumstances, as currently exists for travel expenses for obtaining treatment. The veteran community largely has been calling for this for some time now.
Part 4 makes a technical change in the way documents are served under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The Federal Court recently highlighted the absence of provisions within the VEA and MRCA that set out the requirements for the service of written notices or other documents under the acts. The amendment will enable a number of entities under each act, such as the Repatriation Commission and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, to specify in writing the manner in which a notice or other document may be given to a person.
Part 5 fixes a drafting anomaly in the VEA concerning injuries and diseases and their coverage by MRCA. It makes clear that compensation remains payable under the VEA for the original war-caused and defence-caused component of an injury or disease that is subsequently aggravated or materially contributed to by defence service on or after 1 July 2004, when MRCA began. The member has the option of electing to make a claim under VEA or MRCA for the component of the injury or disease that has been aggravated or materially contributed to by service on or after 1 July 2004. This was the original intention of the legislation and ensures that legally this process is undertaken and carried out.
Part 6 makes a prospective amendment to the MRCA regarding widows of prisoners of war. This amendment will enable them to claim a pension under MRCA—a provision which is available in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act but not under MRCA.
Part 7 is a technical amendment which will enable the Specialist Medical Review Council, or SMRC, to review decisions of the RMA. The RMA is responsible for preparing statements of principles which are utilised by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in assessing the eligibility of a veteran for particular entitlements for injuries or part of their service. There are two statements of principles used in determining whether an injury or disease is related to war or defence service. One sets out the types of conditions which need to exist as a minimum before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting the injury or disease with service. The other statement sets out factors that must exist and which of those factors must be related to service before it can be said that, on the balance of probabilities, an injury or disease is connected with service.
Statements of principles are prepared by the Repatriation Medical Authority. They can be reviewed by the Specialist Medical Review Council, and under the current legislation there is no requirement for the SMRC to review both statements of principles. This can lead to the potential for the two statements to differ slightly. So under this amendment the SMRC will review both statements to ensure that they remain aligned.
The final amendments in part 8 clarify some technical arrangements under the MRCA as they relate to the payment of money into bank accounts. The amendments also enable recipients of the Victoria Cross to receive an annuity from a foreign government in addition to the Australian government’s Victoria Cross allowance. Currently annuities cannot be received by Australian recipients in conjunction with an Australian annuity. The VEA will be amended to exclude any foreign allowance or annuity from counting as income under the act’s income test. Any payment will be included in the hardship test of the act. The Social Security Act will also be amended to exclude any foreign allowance or annuity from the act’s income test in line with existing practice.
Madam Deputy Speaker, these are minor but not inconsequential amendments. We support the changes to the legislation which make it easier for our veterans and their families to access assistance and benefits that they may be entitled to. Whilst we have some reservations about the SES levy, more broadly this legislation does carry the bipartisan support of the opposition.
I would like to commence my contribution on the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 by paying my respects to all those veterans in the electorate of Shortland, and for that matter throughout Australia, who have made an enormous contribution to Australia. I think every time we debate veterans legislation it is important to look at the group of people that the legislation is impacting upon. In Shortland electorate we do have a large number of veterans, particularly Second World War veterans and veterans who have been affected by the nuclear tests that took place in Australia. This legislation does extend the nuclear test participation eligibility to certain Australian protective services officers for the period of 1984 to 1988.
I am very familiar with the impact that those nuclear tests had on the lives of our veterans and Australians who were in that area at the time the tests took place. I have done a lot of work in my electorate with veterans and those affected by those tests. I have seen some of them die. I have seen others who have constantly fought cancers such as cancers of the skin, in one case working with and helping over an extended period of time a person with myeloid leukaemia. He was somebody who really raised with me the issues associated with the atomic testing. I could see at a personal level how that testing impacted on his life, and then I met with a wider range of atomic test veterans. I think the extension of this participation eligibility is important. Those officers of the Australian protective services deserve to have that coverage because I know that their health and their lives have been impacted enormously.
As a member of this House who stood up at times on this issue when the Howard government was in power and saw how little compassion and sympathy that government had towards our nuclear test veterans, it really warms my heart to be part of a government that has not only recognised the impact that the testing had on the lives of our veterans but has also extended it to the Australian Protective Services. This extension, this eligibility for non-liability healthcare treatment, provides for the government to fund cancer treatment for participants in the British nuclear tests in Australia. Members of the Commonwealth Police, now known as the AFP, were previously granted access to non-liability health care by an amendment to the Australian participation act in 2008. I point out that was under the Rudd government. It took a Labor government to bring about the changes that have been needed. This extension was granted on the basis of scientific evidence, something really important to put before the House. There has been a wide body of scientific evidence that has supported the fact that atomic testing in Australia did impact on the lives and health of those people that were in the area at the time. To be quite frank, it is very disappointing that there was such a long period when those persons that were in that area went without having the recognition and the healthcare treatment that they should have been entitled to. The fact is that this scientific evidence indicated that the unique nature of the service of the police and APS officers increased the possibility of exposure to contaminated dust and dirt.
The constituent to whom I referred earlier who had myeloid leukaemia had worked in a truck. He told me how everyday when he would return from work his clothes would be covered in this contaminated dust. There was no decontamination process to go through; rather, he walked in, took his clothes off and his wife threw those clothes into the washing machine and then he went to work the next day in either those clothes or a fresh change of clothing. It is interesting to note that his wife has cancer. It is not myeloid leukaemia; it is a different kind of cancer. So I do not think we can underestimate the impact that being in that area and being exposed to contamination had on the lives of those people.
The APS officers patrolled the Maralinga area alongside the Commonwealth Police and the AFP. The amendment provides treatment eligibility for APS officers who served in the Maralinga area up until 30 June 1988, after which time comprehensive precautions and protocols were put in place to prevent exposure. So those APS officers will be eligible for the non-liability medical care and treatment that should have taken place a while ago. It has taken a Labor government to recognise that these APS officers really need the support of their government to be able to obtain the health treatment via white card that they should have been able to claim for a long period of time. The amendment allows APS officers who claim within six months of the introduction of this legislation to have their reimbursement for treatment backdated to 2006. I think that is a very important aspect of this legislation because we all know that the treatment for cancer can be quite an expensive process. This is recognition by the government that those APS officers who served during the relevant period should not be disadvantaged because they were not included in the extension in 2008. That is a really important part of this legislation. While this legislation may seem quite minor in nature, it has enormous implications for a number of APS officers who were in that atomic test area.
Some of the other items included in the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 include the payment for the State Emergency Service. It is my understanding this will have no financial impact. The amendment has a minimal administrative impact on the Defence Service Homes Insurance. DSHI can collect a levy from policyholders but requires the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to be amended to pass the moneys collected onto the New South Wales government. So this is a requirement of the New South Wales government. This levy is being implemented because it is needed to help finance the State Emergency Service. The New South Wales government introduced this levy on insurance policies specifically to fund the State Emergency Service, which plays a very vital role in communities throughout New South Wales. Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, I think that your area recently was badly hit by adverse weather events and the SES played a very important role. I know they did very similar sorts of work in my own electorate after the 2007 storms hit the Hunter. The State Emergency Service is a vital service and it is so important that we ensure that it is properly funded.
Another aspect of the legislation is the extension of time from three months to 12 months in which certain types of travel expenses can be claimed, bringing it into line with other travel reimbursements. Sometimes it is very difficult to put claim forms in within the three-month period. It is an anomaly that there are different periods of time within which different travel expenses can be claimed. It is sensible that all travel claims can be claimed within the same period of time. I think legislation should be put in place that requires all people who are eligible to claim their travel expenses to be treated similarly. So this is, once again, a very sensible change.
The legislation also makes provision for serving notice under both the war entitlements act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. Further, it makes clear that war-caused or defence-caused injury or disease remains compensable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, even if the injury or disease has been aggravated, or materially contributed to, by defence service under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This is very important because we need to support our veterans. We need to make sure that they get compensation when they need it—and legislation should be about enabling, not preventing, that. I see this legislation as enabling compensation to those who are entitled to it under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.
The legislation corrects the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to enable the payment of a pension to a dependant of a veteran who was a prisoner of war during operational service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, where the veteran died after the commencement of the current act. Once again, this is a very, very important change to the legislation. A further provision enables a Specialist Medical Review Council to review both versions of the statement of principles applicable to the same injury, disease or death. The legislation also clarifies that the Specialist Medical Review Council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical Authority. Further, the legislation ensures certain lump sum payments of compensation and it enables Victoria Cross recipients to receive an allowance if they are also eligible for an allowance from a foreign country. This is very important legislation. It should be embraced by all members of this House, and I encourage members to support it as it is about benefits to all our veterans. (Time expired)
Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, before I speak on the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010, I would like to congratulate you formally on your re-election at the 2010 election. I do not think I have had the opportunity to do that in this place to date.
The veterans community is a very significant community across my electorate of Corangamite and also my sister electorate, the federal electorate of Corio. In fact, under the veterans affairs legislation, some 3,000 veterans are provided entitlements within my seat and some 2,000-odd in the federal seat of Corio. It is a very active community. A number of service organisations meet regularly with me to advise and discuss matters that concern veterans. I certainly warmly acknowledge the active representations that they make to me.
I would also like to acknowledge the dedicated work of former Minister Alan Griffin, the member for Bruce, who worked in a very diligent way with the veterans community over the last three years to ensure that the Gillard government was responding to their needs. I certainly look forward to working with our new minister, Minister Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, in implementing further reforms that support the veterans community. They have made an outstanding contribution to Australia, and I certainly acknowledge that.
This piece of legislation has been many years in the making. The schedules associated with it have necessarily recognised some changes that have been a long time in the making. I first wish to discuss the Australian participants in the British nuclear test sites, particularly Maralinga, which has been an issue many governments have failed to recognise for a very, very significant period of time. The medical evidence has been mounting over many years that these nuclear tests have caused significant damage to the veterans community. The contribution made by the Deputy Government Whip and the practical example that she highlighted drew parallels to many people in our community suffering from asbestos related diseases. It is not just those who worked for the Australian Federal Police who were impacted on by radioactive dust. Particularly with those suffering mesothelioma and other diseases like that, it is often the women who might have had responsibility in the home for laundering the clothes of their husband or partner who also might have been adversely affected.
It is fair to say that through the white card the government has enabled these Australians to access this measure that has been a long time in the making. The non-liability healthcare treatment provides government funded treatment for cancers in the form of the white card for participants in British nuclear tests in Australia. The Commonwealth police at that period of time—now know as the Australian Federal Police—were previously granted access to non-liability healthcare treatment by an amendment in 2008to the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. The extension was granted on the basis of scientific evidence indicating that the unique nature of police and APS officer service increased the possibility of exposure to contaminated dust and dirt. As I relayed earlier, it occurs to me that there is a large parallel here with those suffering mesothelioma and particularly those who might have had responsibility for laundering clothes and the like of their partners or husbands.
The APS officers patrolled the Maralinga area alongside the AFP for many decades to ensure that the site remained safe from the rest of Australia. But that did do significant harm to them, as I understand it. The amendment provides treatment eligibility for APS officers who served at that test site up until 1988, after which time comprehensive precautionary protocols were put in place to prevent exposure. As I indicated earlier, it did take a long, long time for the Commonwealth to recognise the potential harm that that was doing. That is why I am so supportive of these amendments.
The amendment provides treatment eligibility for APS officers who served at that test site up until 1988; after which time, comprehensive precautionary protocols were put in place to prevent exposure. As I indicated earlier, it took a long time for the Commonwealth to recognise the potential harm of that exposure. That is why I am so supportive of these amendments. The amendment allows for APS officers who claim within six months of its introduction to have their treatment reimbursed back to June 2006. I think that recognises that our government has been working on this for a significant period of time, but also that there has been significant harm done. We want to recognise that, and this is a practical way we can as a government—and as a parliament hopefully—recognise the contribution that these men and women paid.
The next schedule that I wish to speak on is the New South Wales government’s introduction of a levy on insurance policy holders to contribute to funding for their state emergency services. As the Deputy Speaker well knows, I am a Victorian and we have sister organisations in Victoria—the CFA and the Victoria State Emergency Services. Having seen over the last couple of years the very significant contribution that the CFA and the SES have made to the Victorian community, I fully appreciate the need to have properly and adequately funded emergency organisations to provide a level of protection for us, whether it is responding to wildfire, which has been a significant issue in Victoria over the last few years, or flooding—this winter seems to have been a particularly wet one. I think it is quite reasonable that the New South Wales government puts in place mechanisms to ensure that their emergency organisations are properly funded to provide that level of protection to all of us.
The third component that I wish to speak to is the issue of claims for travel expenses. Under changes to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, ‘an eligible person may be paid travelling expenses incurred in obtaining treatment’. I think that is quite reasonable. We live in a country that is huge. Many in our veterans community come from rural and regional areas, and travel is a significant impost. I warmly welcome the provision, which will enable travel expenses to be recognised as appropriate. Under the arrangements the time limit for submitting a claim for travel expenses in the above circumstances is three months, and there are no exceptional circumstances provisions to extend that period. I think it is quite reasonable that people are given a window to make their claim for travel expenses and I think three months is adequate time to do that.
The fourth point I wish to touch on is the giving of notices and other documents. A Federal Court decision highlighted the absence of provisions within the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 setting out the requirements for service of written notices or other documents under each of those acts. The court found that there were no provisions in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act that specified how a person was to be served with a written notice. As a consequence, section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 was applicable to the circumstances of the case.
The amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and, of course, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 will require a number of entities under each act, such as the commission or a person’s service chief, to specify in writing the manner in which a notice or other document may be given to a person, and I think that is quite reasonable.
A number of the provisions under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act require persons to be given notices that affect them and may have, of course, legal consequences. According to the judgment, as I am informed, notices sent to a post office box or non-residential address would not be legally effective. I think that is a commonsense decision, and these amendments recognise that judgment. The amendments will ensure that notices and other documents that are served will be legally effective, and that is of course critically important.
This will also protect taxpayer funds in relation to the recovery of overpayments, and will ensure that time limits for appeal periods apply as they are intended to, and again that seems to me to be quite reasonable.
There are a number of other issues spelt out within the amendments which I will not go into. I do again just want to touch on this point: we have some 5,000 people within the broader Geelong area—again, across my seat and the neighbouring seat of Corio—who are paid one way or another and are recognised under the veterans affairs legislation. They have made an outstanding contribution to Australia, and I certainly continue to look forward to working with those veterans’ community organisations to ensure that the Gillard government responds in an appropriate way to their needs, recognising the significant service that they make, and I look forward to working with Minister Snowdon to ensure that we do deliver on that.
I thank the member for Corangamite for his contribution and his comments and observations, and other speakers: the members for Shortland, Macquarie, Blair and Fadden. It is clear that there is no division on this issue in this parliament, and that is a very important thing.
As we know, the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 will make a variety of changes to veterans affairs portfolio legislation that will improve the ways in which we provide support to our veterans’ family members and dependants. You will have heard that included in the bill are changes that will provide eligibility for free cancer treatment to certain Australian Protective Service officers involved in patrolling the exclusion zone at Maralinga between 1984 and 1988. The officers will be included in the existing scheme that provides such treatment to Australian Defence Force members and Commonwealth employees who were involved in the British nuclear testing program during the 1950s and 1960s, and who were subsequently employed at Maralinga.
The bill will give veterans more time to make claims for non-treatment-related travel expenses, which is a very important thing. These changes will extend from three months to 12 months the period within which the non-treatment travel claims may be submitted for reimbursement. This change, as I am sure you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, will benefit veterans and their dependants who travel for non-treatment-related purposes such as attending claim reviews or obtaining medical evidence.
The bill will also enable Defence Service Homes Insurance to contribute to the cost of providing emergency services in New South Wales through the payment of the State Emergency Service levy. As you heard from the member for Corangamite, the levy will be collected from Defence Service Homes Insurance policyholders and remitted to the New South Wales government.
The bill also includes minor changes to improve the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Council, firstly by making it clear that the Specialist Medical Review Council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical Authority to not amend a statement of principles. Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you would now know, the changes will provide for the Specialist Medical Review Council to review both versions of a statement of principles that relate to a particular condition even if an applicant has requested a review of only one of the statements of principles. The bill will also clarify the relevant provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to ensure that compensation will continue to be payable to eligible members in the circumstances where an initial war- or defence-caused injury or disease is aggravated or materially contributed to by service under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill will also ensure that the payment of a pension to the dependant of a veteran who is a prisoner of war will continue as originally intended after the commencement of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.
Other changes made by the bill will protect the interests of compensation recipients under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act by requiring that certain compensation payments are made to an account maintained in a compensation recipient’s name, which of course is most important. Additionally, the bill will also enable Victoria Cross and decoration allowance recipients to receive both Victoria Cross or decoration allowances under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and a Victoria Cross or decoration allowance or annuity from a foreign country. Finally, the bill will enable certain entities under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to specify the manner in which notices and other documents may be served. This will ensure that the legal effect of such notices and documents is protected. Changes made by the bill demonstrate this government’s commitment to continually review, update and improve the services and support we provide to our current and former military personnel and their families. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.