Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr O'Connor.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011 implements changes to article 3 of the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, commonly referred to as the ANZCERTA.
The ANZCERTA has been a remarkable success. It is Australia's longest standing bilateral free trade agreement, having been in force since 1983. It is a wide-ranging agreement that provides Australia and New Zealand with liberal access to each other's goods and services markets. The World Trade Organization recognised it as 'one of the world's most comprehensive, effective and multilaterally-compatible free trade agreements'.
Australia and New Zealand provide duty free access to each other's goods that meet the rules of origin requirements in the ANZCERTA. On 1 January 2007, these rules of origin provisions underwent significant change to allow both the 'change in tariff classification' and the 'regional value content' methods to determine origin of goods. As part of the 2007 amendments to the ANZCERTA, both countries have agreed to conduct a review of the new rules of origin within three years of these new rules taking effect. This review, commenced in late 2008 and completed in March 2010, resulted in changes to the text of ANZCERTA article 3 'Rules of Origin' and the related Product Specific Rules in annex G to the ANZCERTA. Amendments to the Customs (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Regulations 2006 will implement the changes to annex G.
The changes to the ANZCERTA, implemented domestically through this bill and amendments to the Customs (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Regulations 2006, will reduce the administrative burden on businesses, facilitate the eligibility for duty free entry of goods into both markets, and provide greater consistency between the ANZCERTA Rules of Origin and those of other trade agreements negotiated by Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following items of private Members' business being reported from the Main Committee, or called on, and considered immediately in the following order:
Criteria for independent youth allowance—Order of the day No. 23;
Malaysia asylum seekers proposal—Order of the day No. 21;
Greater Western Sydney Conservation Corridor—Report from Main Committee;
Death of Mr Greg McNicol—Report from Main Committee; and
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—Report from Main Committee.
The Selection Committee determined that eight items of private members' business were to be voted on. As Leader of the House I am putting forward five this Thursday. That means the remaining three items will be put to a vote on the next sitting Thursday, which is next week.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Government has:
(a) admitted there is a problem with the criteria for independent youth allowance for inner regional students;
(b) committed to bringing forward its review of the matter with the broad purpose of finding a permanent solution to address the disadvantages that currently exist for rural and regional students in qualifying for financial assistance; and
(c) indicated it will remove the difference between the inner regional areas and the other regional zones for the eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance; and
(2) calls on the Government to bring forward its timetable for resolving the matter, and in particular ensure that:
(a) the review is completed and funds to pay for the measure are secured by l July 2011;
(b) the current eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance for persons whose homes are located in Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia, and Very Remote Australia according to the Remoteness Structure defined in subsection 1067A(10F) of the Social Security Act 1991 also apply to those with homes in Inner Regional Australia from 1 July 2011; and
(c) all students who had a gap year in 2010 (ie, 2009 Year 12 school leavers) and who meet the relevant criteria qualify for the payment.
Question put.
The House divided. [9:11]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) condemns the Gillard Government's deal with Malaysia that would see 800 asylum seekers intercepted in Australian waters and sent to Malaysia; and
(2) calls on the Government to immediately abandon this proposal.
Question put.
The House divided. [09:22]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question agreed to.
Order of the day returned from the Main Committee; certified copy presented.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that in the 2010 Federal Election, the Coalition, Australian Labor Party and Australian Greens committed to establishing the Greater Western Sydney Corridor but the Australian Government has failed to act to protect Cumberland Plain Woodland and endangered flora and fauna species; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to implement the Coalition's policy to protect Western Sydney's Cumberland Plain Woodland and endangered flora and fauna species, and:
(a) establish the Greater Western Sydney Conservation Corridor linking nature reserves and identified priority lands within the Greater Western Sydney Region, as an environmental legacy for future generations;
(b) establish a joint State-Federal Consultative Committee to consider information with regard to the establishment of the Greater Western Sydney Conservation Corridor;
(c) consult and work with the NSW Government on strategies to acquire identified 'priority conservation sites' for the Conservation Corridor, utilising funds held within the NSW Growth Centres Conservation Fund for that purpose;
(d) identify private land that links areas of the proposed Corridor and work towards a mutually beneficial outcome with private land holders; and
(e) consult with the NSW Government on the feasibility of a comprehensive audit of the Greater Western Sydney bushland region to identify conservation values that will include listings of threatened and or endangered species.
Question put.
The House divided. [09:29]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Order of the day returned from the Main Committee; certified copy presented.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) expresses:
(a) its condolences to the family of Australian citizen Mr Greg McNicol who was shot while helping to transform a run-down apartment block into a family building in Detroit;
(b) its gratitude to the City and Police Department of Detroit for the speed with which they have apprehended the alleged killer, and urge that the investigation is continued until such time as police are certain that no other parties were complicit; and
(c) our great respect for the people of America and in particular those engaged in the great renaissance of Detroit; and
(2) respectfully call on the Mayor and City of Detroit to create a public park in the vacant land adjacent to where Mr McNicol was both working and lost his life, with an appropriate recognition of Mr McNicol's vision for a better local community.
Question agreed to.
Order of the day returned from the Main Committee; certified copy presented.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) recognises the provision of affordable medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is central to Australia's health system;
(2) acknowledges that since its inception, the PBS is an uncapped program;
(3) agrees that evaluations of pharmaceuticals for listing under the PBS should be transparent, evidence based, and not subject to capricious political interference;
(4) notes that:
(a) before recommending medicines for listing on the PBS, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) conducts a rigorous evaluation to determine the comparative clinical and cost effectiveness of the proposed medicine;
(b) the three tiers of major applications for PBS listings are designed to promote an efficient Government approval process; and
(c) positive recommendations by the PBAC have nearly always been approved by the Minister for Health;
(5) deplores the Government's new policy that:
(a) despite positive recommendations by the PBAC, all applications for listing will be further scrutinised by Cabinet;
(b) listing of medicines can be deferred indefinitely;
(c) no new PBS listings will occur unless offset savings are found; and
(d) until the budget returns to surplus, these measures will remain in place;
(6) recognises that:
(a) in scrutinising applications, the PBAC already determines value for money; and
(b) under the Government's new policy, access to medicines will be limited and medications which could improve the treatment of chronic or common conditions will remain financially unaffordable for many Australians; and
(7) condemns the Government for prioritising a return to surplus above the wellbeing of Australians.
Question agreed to.
In accordance with standing order 51, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. I raise this matter of privilege under standing order 51 as it concerns the unauthorised disclosure of proceedings of a parliamentary committee. A number of reports concerning a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report, which is to be tabled in the parliament today, appeared in the press in the last two days. They include, on page 1 of the Sydney Morning Herald today, direct quotes from the committee report. I table the following items: the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 June 2011; a report on page 15 of the Herald Sun of 15 June headed 'Airport security slack'; an article from the Daily Telegraph of15 June titled 'Air security flaws'; an editorial from the Herald Sun of 15 June titled 'Terror attacks still a danger'; on 16 June, today, page 1 of the Canberra Times is the heading 'Domestic flyers facing photo ID checks'; on page 4 of the Western Australian of today is an article titled 'Photo ID proposals for flights'; and on 14 June, two days ago, and once again on the front page, the Australian Financial Review headline 'Air safety under scrutiny'.
The fact that these reports include references to this inquiry and, in particular, direct quotes which appear to come from this committee report would seem to reveal details of confidential proceedings of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement in connection with its inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime.
The unauthorised disclosure of committee proceedings is a long and recognised category of contempt. I refer to the House of Representatives Practice pages 681, 682, 701 and 702. Such unauthorised disclosure has serious implications for the successful completion of inquiries for the conduct of a committee's business generally and for the integrity of the whole parliamentary committee system.
I want to make it clear, Mr Speaker, that I am raising these issues as the Leader of the House, not with my portfolio responsibilities. As provided by standing order 53, I have tabled copies of the articles in question. I ask that you consider what I regard as a very serious matter in accordance with the established procedures for dealing with such complaints. Any breach of a committee of inquiry such as this is a serious issue. The fact that this is an inquiry about security raises the issue to an even higher level than were it a committee about any other policy area. I regard it as a very serious issue, and I therefore ask you to consider the matter.
I thank the Leader of the House for bringing this matter to my attention. In accordance with the traditional practice of the House in dealing with such matters in the first instance, I will ask the joint committee to consider the matter and report back to me.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Contamination Remediation Works, former fire training area, RAAF Base Williams, Point Cook, Victoria.
RAAF Base Williams, Point Cook, Victoria, covers an area of approximately 344 hectares, part of which borders Port Phillip Bay. It is currently an operating airfield used mostly by civilian aircraft. An area of Point Cook which was formerly used for firefighting training has been identified as a source of contamination. Firefighting training at the site required the use of a range of flammable chemicals to ignite and extinguish old aircraft. A number of known carcinogens and other contaminants toxic to humans and the environment have been identified as being present in the soil and discharging via groundwater to Port Phillip Bay. Remediation is required to ensure the protection of human health and to include the quality of the groundwater and the Port Phillip Bay marine environment. This can only be achieved by reducing the contamination concentrations entering the groundwater. The estimated turnout cost of the proposed works is $23 million plus GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works contract will be engaged in December 2011 with works expected to occur between February 2012 and April 2013. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Specific nutritional capability project for the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Scottsdale, Tasmania.
The Department of Defence proposes to redevelop the Defence Science and Technology Organisation's nutritional research facility at Scottsdale in Tasmania. The DSTO Scottsdale facility is vital to maintaining the nutritional and health status of Australian troops because it provides food and feeding regimes which enhance performance. The works will include the redevelopment of food technology facilities, upgrades to existing chemistry and nutrition laboratories and improvements to site infrastructure and working areas. The redevelopment will result in a modern food science facility equipped to meet the future nutritional needs of ADF personnel. The estimated outturn cost of the proposal is $18.7 million plus GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence late this year and be completed by late 2013. I commend the motion of the House.
Question agreed to.
Before debate is resumed I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 and the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
'the House decline to give the bill a second reading until the terms of the regulations giving effect to the provisions of the bill are laid before the House'.
Before my remarks to the House last night were abruptly terminated by the procedural requirements of this place, I was coming to the third of the three principal points I want to make, which was that in so far as the necessary details for this legislative scheme have been provided, one of the requirements made clear in the legislation appears to be unnecessarily rigid and impractical and therefore not likely to contribute to the success of the scheme and its fitness to farmers and other private sector interests in being incented to behave in the way the scheme is intended to incent for them to behave. I refer to the requirement that sequestration must be permanent to be eligible under the scheme. The bar for permanence has been set very high. The requirement is that the sequestration must be effective for 100 years.
It seems rather unclear as to the basis on which this 100-year requirement has been set and it appears to be a matter of considerable contention as to whether that figure has any particular scientific basis or whether it has been based upon a bureaucratic stroke of the pen. Quite a number of interested parties have appeared before both the Senate and the House inquiries into this matter, including Carbon Farmers of Australia and the Australian Plantation Products and Paper Industry Council, who have identified concerns with this particular provision.
In conclusion, we say on this side of the House that this particular measure is good in concept but, sadly, is poor in execution. Until we see the details, we are not in a position to support it.
I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011. I will restrict my comments to the interaction of the bill with native title. It is a complex issue, as acknowledged on page 44 of the explanatory memorandum, where it says at paragraph 4.51:
Given the practical and legal complexity of the interaction of the scheme with native title, the Government intends to undertake further consultation with a broad range of stakeholders and complete detailed legal analysis before reflecting a considered approach in amendments to the bill.
It is good that the government is doing that because, from what I have read so far, I am concerned about the restrictive nature of the interaction of native title with this bill. On page 39 of the explanatory memorandum, paragraph 4.18 it says:
To be eligible to apply for a project, native title holders must hold the legal right to carry out the project and, in the case of sequestration projects, the carbon sequestration right.
They then go on to say at 4.19:
It is not clear whether native title could include a right to carbon sequestration. This is because native title rights are sourced from traditional laws and customs, which may not include the recently identified right to benefit from carbon stored in the land. As a result, native title holders may need to seek a court determination (or a consent determination) to confirm their carbon sequestration right before they could participate in the scheme. This is likely to be difficult, costly and time consuming and any court decision would be unlikely to have universal application to other native title holders. Demonstrating the legal right to carry out a project may present a similar hurdle.
It then goes on to say at paragraph 4.20:
To address this barrier, the bill will take the registered native title body corporate to be the project proponent where the project area is determined exclusive possession native title land, as long as:
What we then do is restrict it to exclusive possession. With the greatest of respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Wik case is a classic case where you do not need exclusive possession to be found to be a native title holder. What I am worried about here—and it is something that has been raised by people before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts that has considered this matter—under non-exclusive possession is that you cannot rule out their ability to participate in this bill before us. I think there is a concession there, but they are in effect saying that we still have to work on it.
Recently we had a number of agreed native title determinations in the Northern Territory and Western Australia for vast areas of land. In the Northern Territory there was 16,500 square kilometres. In terms of the settlement of Australia and the titles, as you go west, particularly in Western Australia, there are many leaseholds with reservations for Indigenous people. The threshold should be that, if you are a native title holder and a determination on native title has been made, you are able to participate in the scheme, all things being equal.
We have had a number of lectures recently by the former Prime Minister Paul Keating. He gave the Lowitja O'Donoghue oration for the Don Dunstan Foundation at the University of Adelaide on 31 May 2011 about reversing the burden of proof. Indeed, back on 9 July 2008 Justice French also talked about how difficult it is to prove a continued connection. He talked about some modest proposals for the lifting of the burden of native title.
I congratulate the government because they have not been conclusive in what they have determined in this bill to date. They have left open the question of consultation. I am saying that we should be a little more generous. It is right that non-exclusive holders could go to court and have a determination on this matter, but why should they be put through the expense? In my view, if you are native title holder, there should be a presumption that you are able to participate in this scheme. If there is any hint that says, 'If it is non-exclusive possession you are going to lock us out,' we will have another situation where Indigenous people have to go to the High Court for a determination.
This is a scheme that we should be encouraging people to participate in. We talk about bridging the gap. We should be saying that, if you are a native title holder in exclusive or non-exclusive possession, you should have an opportunity to participate in this scheme. I accept that in a number of instances non-exclusive title holders might not fall into the category of being able to participate in this scheme, for whatever reason, but I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency made a speech also on 8 June 2011 where he said:
While the interaction of the Carbon Farming Initiative with the Native Title Act is complex, the Government has developed a creative solution to allow holders of exclusive possession of native title easy and direct access to the scheme.
The Government is continuing to engage with Indigenous stakeholders and others about appropriate consent rights to project on land that is subject to non-exclusive native title. Consent rights will allow the native title holders to negotiate a share of the benefits of sequestration projects on their land.
That is exactly the point I am trying to make—there is engagement taking place. I urge and encourage the government to go the extra yards on non-exclusive native title to encourage participation by Indigenous people. This was the subject of an advisory report on the bills by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, with Mr Zappia as the chair and Dr Mal Washer as the deputy chair. Anna Burke, Jill Hall, Nola Marino, Wyatt Roy and Kelvin Thomson were also on that committee. On native title, they said at paragraph 2.82:
The Committee does have concerns about the treatment of non-exclusive native title in the bill, but understands that continued consultations and discussions with Indigenous groups are planned by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—
(Quorum formed) It is not an accident that the person who took the quorum call was the member for Paterson, who is well known as Paterson's curse. I do not think it is an accident that I was actually talking about reducing Indigenous disadvantage, which his leader rabbits on about but at every opportunity they never come to the table. We are talking about carbon farming, native title, exclusive and non-exclusive possession and the opportunity to bring Aboriginal people into a project that might advance them. So what do we get? We get a quorum call by the member for Paterson. It is not for me to comment on him; it speaks for itself. He can take as many quorum calls as he wants for the next 2½ years because he is over the other side. That is what we have had for the last six or seven months. We have had a bitter and twisted opposition who do not accept the fact that they got done over in the last election, we formed a government with assistance from the Greens and Independent members of this House and we are going to get on with business. You can call as many quorums as you want, but it exposes you for the small-minded person that you are.
No, not me.
Not you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I would never say that about you.
Thank you.
In relation to carbon farming, the government have left it open to talk to Indigenous groups about non-exclusive possession. I am welcoming that. I have said, and I repeat, my position is that we should be generous. We have had two speeches, one from the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, and one from the current Chief Justice of the High Court, Chief Justice French, who is a former President of the National Native Title Tribunal. In effect they are saying that we should revisit the way we do business in relation to native title. In relation to this matter we do not have to revisit it. What we can do, because it is an evolving thing, is be more generous. We have done that by opening negotiations. That is where I am coming from.
The other question in relation to the matter before the House that Indigenous people are worried about is the question of additionality. In the submission to the House of Representatives committee from Centrefarm dated 15 April, they say on additionality:
The adoption of the 'addition' provision in the CFI as it currently stands will significantly impair the rights of Aboriginal people to participate in carbon markets. There are a range of carbon projects that could be or currently are being undertaken on Aboriginal land that may well fall into the 'business as usual' category.
For example, Indigenous Protected Areas: if an agreement with the Australian government exists that Aboriginal land will be managed for conservational purposes, and then funding is provided to develop and implement a management plan for these; any cool season fire management carbon abatement initiatives could be considered 'business as usual' and be disqualified.
My suggestion to overcome that is that the additionality provisions should not apply to Indigenous people. We can justify that on the basis that what we are trying to do is advance Indigenous people's position in Australia today. We talk about closing the gap and this is a method whereby we can make an exception in relation to additionality if it makes it harder for Aboriginal people to participate. It should be welcomed by those opposite because it actually falls within the racial discrimination convention of positive treatment. It falls within that area that allows us to do this. So I commend that proposal to the government as a way of overcoming the problem. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011. Right from the very start I must rule out this perception the government is trying to put forward that the coalition do not agree with achieving the same targets in CO2 reductions in the same time frame. In fact, the coalition have a bipartisan view on achieving a five per cent reduction on 2000 emissions by 2020. Just the means by which the coalition will go about achieving the outcome are different to those of the government. The coalition do not believe that you need to hinder, impede or penalise people with a tax; what you need to do is incentivise and create opportunities for people to put into practice measures that will reduce emissions.
In producing this bill the Prime Minister expects the coalition to trust her with the missing regulations. The Australian people have already had proven to them that they cannot trust this Prime Minister, that her word and her leadership mean nothing. On Channel 10 on 16 August, the Prime Minister said:
There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
Four days later, in the Australian, she said:
I rule out a carbon tax.
Here we now have a government, led by Prime Minister Gillard, that have put forward a bill without regulations and that says, 'Trust me, we will get it right.' The coalition is very mindful about giving this government blank cheques because, based on their track record—and we only need to look at the Home Insulation Program, Green Loans Program and school halls program—their programs have not been delivered with good governance. Why should the taxpayers, the community at large or the coalition support this government when they say, 'Trust us'? They have shown through their ineffective management they cannot be trusted.
As I said, the coalition in essence agree with the principle of this bill—a bill which lacks the detail of regulations. The coalition's direct action plan, also as I said before, agreed to reduce emissions by five per cent by 2020, but we agreed to do it by creating a fund to buy back greenhouse emissions through more tree planting, better soils and utilising smarter technology. This is the way to go.
This bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and that committee's report contained a dissenting report by the coalition, signed off by Senator Richard Colbeck. I will quote the opening comments in this dissenting report:
The Coalition is strongly supportive of the practice of storing carbon in our soils and landscape.
A Coalition Government will implement a climate change strategy based on direct action to reduce emissions and improve the environment.
Direct action on soil carbon will be the major plank of our strategy, supported by other direct action measures that will reduce CO2 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 based on 1990 levels and deliver significant environmental outcomes – without the need for a great big new tax.
To facilitate direct action, a Coalition Government will establish an Emissions Reduction Fund to support CO2 emissions reduction activity by business and industry.
Through the Fund, we will support up to 160 million tonnes of abatement per annum by 2020 to meet our 5 per cent target. This is a once in a century replenishment of our soil carbon.
Significantly improving soil carbon also helps soil quality, farm productivity and water efficiency, and should be a national goal regardless of the CO2 abatement benefits. Through the Emissions Reduction Fund a Coalition Government will commit to a ‘once in a century’ replenishment of our national soils and farmlands.
The dissenting report is worth reading. It is worth adhering to because there are ways and means of achieving outcomes without introducing a great big new tax. The principal coalition concerns raised in this Senate inquiry included:
I thought it would be pretty important to have all the information available before this government asked the House to commit to legislation without knowing the details of regulations. The other concerns included:
This government is asking the parliament to put on a blindfold, ignore reality, ignore its past performance and just pass a piece of legislation which will give an open slather to this government to destroy any ounce of credibility or direction in relation to reducing emissions, because it has obviously not thought through the whole process. There is no need to rush through legislation without the supporting regulations. I am sure the member for New England would agree with that, as he is someone who quite rightly questions and reviews regulations in relation to farming practices from time to time. I am sure he would be uncomfortable in passing legislation without the detail that is required for this to have an ounce of credibility.
As I said before, we only need to rely on the Prime Minister's own statements when she guaranteed there would be no carbon tax under the government that she led. The Prime Minister not only has misled the people but also is a hypocrite. How can we be assured that through this legislation the detail will not change through regulation and the impact will not be distorted?
I believe the carbon tax is bad news for Australia. It is bad news for industry. In this House in the last few weeks, I have quoted from the Tourism and Transport Forum report which said that the introduction of a carbon tax would lead to some 6,400 job losses in the tourism industry. The majority of those job losses would occur in regional and rural Australia—in areas like Cairns. Cairns is struggling to survive under the perfect storm that has affected tourism: the floods, the cyclones and the high dollar. These things have had a dramatic effect on the tourism industry in Cairns. Would it be able to sustain the additional cost pressures of a carbon tax, particularly when page 4 of that report says 'outbound tourism will be the beneficiary of this carbon tax'?
I have to be honest and add that the Tourism and Transport Forum has said it will support a carbon tax provided it gets exemptions. It would seem that the people who are supporting a carbon tax are those who are seeking exemptions. In that regard, I only need to quote Paul Howes, the industrious union leader, who said that a carbon tax was fantastic and then had to turn around and qualify that by saying, 'As long as there is not one job lost and as long as you provide exemptions for my steel industry.' We are now seeing a raft of politicians on the government side agreeing to a carbon tax as long as their community is exempt—much like the tourism industry report last week that said that they will support a carbon tax provided they are exempt or that certain sectors are compensated.
I want to go through a few employment figures in relation to the Hunter Valley. Employment in the Hunter Valley will be directly affected by a carbon tax, yet we have heard nothing from the members from that area. For example, the member for Newcastle's electorate has an aluminium industry and Tomago Aluminium directly employs 1,070 people and employs 250 contractors. There has not been one word from the member for Newcastle seeking exemptions under a carbon tax for the aluminium industry. Port Waratah Coal Services in her electorate employs 395 people, and particularly 16 apprentices. Her electorate also has the major coal export port in the Southern Hemisphere, but there has not been one word in support of that industry from her. The Forgacs Group, who are building a lot of the modules for our air warfare destroyers, employ 540 permanent employees and 38 casual employees—that is, 578 people employed in shipbuilding and heavy engineering in her electorate, but there has been no word in support of those people whose jobs will be at risk. The member for Newcastle also has One Steel based at Mayfield in her electorate. All of these industries, just to name a few, will be massively impacted by the introduction of a carbon tax. But she has become the 'Silent' Billy Jack of politics in relation to standing up for her constituents. But she is not alone.
The member for Hunter has not only the broad majority of coalmines in his electorate but also Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri that has 537 direct employees and about 2,000 indirect. When has he stood up for his constituents, all of whom are at risk of losing their jobs? How do you compensate a person whose job is gone? You can say, 'They can retrain or they can go into other industries,' but the best thing you can do for any individual is to give them a job. Give them a rewarding career and provide them with an adequate income for what they do. Time and time again, we are seeing Labor members backing up their Prime Minister—who delivered policy contrary to what she said just days before the election—to the detriment of the people whom they represent. The members for Newcastle and Hunter are not alone. The member for Shortland, Ms Hall, also has coalmines in her electorate. In addition, Mr Combet, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the architect of a carbon tax, has coalmines in his electorate. These members are all prepared to sell their people and their industries up the river to push forward a policy that they rejected prior to an election.
A report that came out this week said that there would be massive job losses in the coalmining industry. In fact, there was talk of some 18 mines closing and 4,000 jobs going. Even Minister Ferguson, the Minister for Resources and Energy, confirmed that there would be job losses and that coalmines could possibly close. But nowhere do they detail which mines and from which regions those job losses would be effected. As they go forward with these proposals and this legislation, it is incumbent on ministers and governments to state clearly whose jobs will be affected. The easy position would be for everyone to agree to a carbon tax provided they are exempt—and that is all that has happened. People who are agreeing to the carbon tax in industry are saying, 'We will support this provided we get exemptions, provided we get compensation.' How does that change that effect?
In closing, I see a lot of school children up in the gallery. They will probably agree with me on this if they think back. I have three teenage children and I quote this example quite regularly. My teenage children understand the need to make a difference and they talk to me all the time about climate change. I believe climate change is real. If it was not, you would not have coal, you would not have gas and you would not have oil—all products of climate change. But can I get my teenage children to turn off their bedroom lights, their computers, their bathroom lights or the television? The answer is no. They understand the need but the actions do not match the rhetoric. What we need to do is provide greater education so that people know that individually they can make a difference. That is what the coalition's direct action plan is about—individuals making a difference to reduce CO2 emissions. I cannot support this bill because it has no detail nor any substance.
The statement that was just made by the previous speaker, the member for Paterson, in relation to young people understanding the need but not prepared to do anything about it, I think actually reflects more on the coalition than any young people. If you actually engage with young people, they do understand that there is a serious issue to be debated here and I think they would like this parliament to be serious about the issue.
The bills before the parliament are in relation to the carbon farming initiative, and some people, particularly in the agricultural community, have given the imprimatur that this is about farming. It is not just about farming; it is about utilising or sequestering carbon in a number of areas that can involve the landscape, that can involve the farming community but it does not necessarily have to be in relation to the farming community. So a few of my remarks will be about the landscape and land abatement, particularly soil carbon and the way in which it may or may not be part of a process to actually abate carbon or greenhouse gas emissions. Some of my remarks will be related to the carbon tax, to emissions trading schemes and to ways we can address greenhouse gas emissions.
I am pleased to see the member for Wentworth in the chamber. He is one of the few people out of all of us, myself included, who has some real credibility on this issue. I congratulate him for that. Some parts of the debate might not have been easy for him over the last few years, but he has shown a degree of consistency that I think people have appreciated—even those who may not have agreed with him at various times. The rest of us probably do suffer some degree of guilt for understanding the need but not being prepared to follow through—and I again include myself in that.
There has been a lot of talk about the role of soil carbon. No-one in this building has a greater love affair with soil than I do. Soil is one of my great loves. As a young farmer in my 20s I was involved with the development of what is now called no-till farming, or conservation tillage farming—there are a number of variations to the theme. In those days we were having difficulty with root development in sunflowers. Sunflowers have a taproot and, if they can access subsoil moisture in the better soils, obviously the need for rainfall is heavily reduced. We were having difficulty getting the sunflower root to develop through the hardpan created by conventional tillage methods. Little did we know at the time that those methods were doing a lot of damage, but the issue at the time was how to get a better root development so we could utilise the moisture stored in the soil. When I was about 25 I built an implement to go on the back of a four-wheel-drive tractor to rip a trench every 30 inches early in the season before the rainfall occurred, and then plant over that trench later on. That sounds farcical now, but it actually did work. However, I did not need to do that to achieve the right outcome. What I did need to do was keep machinery off the land and change the technology to what is now called no-till, or conservation tillage, farming.
That change in technology did a number of things. It created a greater income, for one thing. It also created some unique features in the soil. Some of these heavy clay soils—podzols, chernozems—were comparable with the best soils in the world, in the Ukraine, parts of Africa, small parts of America and the Darling Downs and the Liverpool Plains of Australia. I have moaned in here about the coal seam gas industry and others invading these areas, and I will mention that again if I have the time. These soils have the capacity, under current technologies, to hold quite massive amounts of water. It is proven technology now that if you do go down the no-till pathway not only do you increase the infiltration rate of the soil but also you improve the microenvironment within the soil. When you relate that to the residue of the previous crops, you see that it has an impact on humus and organic matter, which is soil carbon.
The debate about whether soil carbon can be held in those soils and about the rate at which it accumulates in those soils is ongoing, but it is a debate that needs to occur—and it is part of the carbon farming initiative issue. These technologies, and grazing technologies as well, do have an impact not only on the productivity of the pasture but also on the productivity of the microenvironment within the soil. Many people are looking at soil carbon, or humus and organic matter, as a saviour. But whether soil carbon can go into a market or not is almost irrelevant to me, as a practising farmer. The money is in the productivity. The money is in soil environment improvement; it is in water quality and environmental improvement; it is in the reduction of soil erosion. That is where the money is. There has been too much preoccupation with this as a snap-your-fingers exercise and all of a sudden the farming community will be making a lot of money out of selling soil carbon. To sell something you have to be able to deliver it. Particularly with some of our cracking soils and soils subject to drought, there are no guarantees that, while you may have the carbon there one year, you will have it the next year.
There is a lot of research on soil carbon, and that is why I do support this initiative. Some research will come out of it, as it will come from other measures being debated in parliament, too. There may well be areas of improvement in the future. Prairie grass from the United States, which we call switchgrass, has the capacity to develop a very deep and fibrous root system. You cannot throw a blanket over all our soils because some of them will not sequester much carbon at all, and this is particularly the case in Australia, but switchgrass has the capacity to sequester carbon at depth. In that circumstance we may well end up with something that is a marketable commodity in some sort of carbon market. One of the initiatives that the Carbon Farming Initiative is actually trying to get to is not mentioned in so many words but it is drought proofing. It is about looking at ways in which we can encourage technologies that reduce the impact of drought—for instance, no-till farming in those black soils that I was talking about. That change in technology is measured by the impact of getting an additional six to eight inches of rainfall a year. In a 24-inch rainfall area, that is very significant. If that is not the greatest adaptation to potential climate change that you can have in the food production sector, I do not know what is. It is a simple change of technology, going from conventional farming through to no-till farming. All those other benefits that I talk about, which have a productivity effect—water quality, erosion, infiltration rates, soil structure, soil texture, increased yield, increased productivity in terms of income— are actually drought proofing. That is an important part of the capacity to farm carbon. Government policy at all levels has to encourage all those sorts of activities.
The other side of this debate concerns biodiversity issues. For instance, if we plant trees to sequester carbon we would probably be able to enter a market much more successfully, because the carbon is potentially held in the residue of the tree for far longer than in some of our soils. But if you look at the way in which that would occur and at the five cent target that the coalition currently has for reducing greenhouse gas emissions you will see that it would take about 20 million hectares of trees to achieve the five per cent reduction by 2020. We only have 26 million hectares of arable land in this country and many of those areas are marginal where the capacity to grow trees is significantly reduced. So relying on planting trees as a direct activity to sequester carbon—I am not against planting trees; I plant trees myself—will not achieve the outcome that members of the coalition are talking about.
If anybody took the time to look at the report of the Productivity Commission and some of the other documents that are currently out there, by far the cheapest way of achieving that outcome, if Australia determines that it wants to address that outcome—and I do not think we really have determined that yet—is through some sort of pricing mechanism, an emissions trading scheme preferably or through the so-called dreadful carbon tax with an entry period, with a flexible price, into an emissions trading scheme with international linkages. If we decide to go down that path, there is no other real choice. Under the cash-for-clunkers scheme that the government put in place, carbon abatement was $400 a tonne. Many people embraced that and said, 'That's good, it's encouraging people to get rid of their junk cars.' But it did very little to address the substantive issue.
The Productivity Commission looked at some of the other direct activities or policies, and I take issue with a couple of the areas in the report, particularly on the life cycle analysis of biomass and biofuels and also the sort of odd economic argument the commission has that the removal of a tax that does not exist is in fact a subsidy on that industry. I will not take the time to go into that.
There are a number of issues that are out there. It is very obvious to me that if Australia decides to go down this path—and I think this is where, in a sense, the member for Wentworth has been a leading light; it has been obvious to him from the word go—if we are serious, and I think a number of people are, and we can structure something correctly then the only way to achieve the outcome that we are really after is through some sort of pricing mechanism, whether that be entry into an emissions trading scheme through a carbon tax or directly into an emissions trading scheme, which would be my preferred option.
I would like to touch briefly on some other issues, including coal seam gas. I intend to introduce a private member's bill into this chamber. There is an enormous amount of evidence out there now that we do not know enough about the impact of coal seam gas exploration and mining activity on our soils, our landscape and our groundwater systems.
There was a lot of very positive engagement in relation to the report on the Murray-Darling Basin, but one of the red lights that was being waved at us, whether we were on the Darling Downs or Liverpool Plains or in other areas, was the lack of knowledge of the coal seam gas industry and, in particular, how it could relate to these very soils we are talking about that we want to use for long-term food production and how they relate to water quality and the broader basin issues that this parliament is also dealing with. When I introduce a private member's bill, I would encourage the parliament as a whole to take that issue seriously. It is a serious issue out there. The fact that the current Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities had to put 300 conditions on a coal seam gas proposal in Queensland means that there is something dreadfully wrong with the process. (Time expired)
I rise before the House to speak on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and cognate bills. The bill before the House is an attempt to provide incentives for farmers to establish carbon abatement processes. The coalition supports this aspiration in principle. However, typical of this government, there is a startling lack of detail in the bill before the House. Again, the coalition is attempting to have this oversight rectified through the amendment put forward by the member for Flinders. This government has proven it cannot be trusted with public finances, so no blank cheques. However, the Carbon Farming Initiative Bill is a piecemeal component of the government's overall carbon dioxide emissions reduction policy. The introduction of a carbon tax in July 2012 will be the centrepiece of the carbon reduction policy of this Labor-Greens government, a policy which will destroy jobs while at the same time compounding the already huge cost-of-living pressures faced by Australian families.
Carbon abatement measures, such as the Carbon Farming Initiative, mirror the direct action climate policy the coalition took to the 2010 election. A central component of the coalition's policy to help achieve a five per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from year 2000 levels by the year 2020 is to provide voluntary financial incentives for farmers to abate carbon dioxide emissions. Measures such as biosequestration—the capturing of carbon emissions in soils, trees and other biological matter—is part of this coalition policy objective. Dr Michael Battaglia of the CSIRO's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, in the report titled Greenhouse gas mitigation: sources and sinks in agriculture and forestry, outlined the great potential for biosequestration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this report, Dr Battaglia also found that:
We can potentially increase these stores in our rural lands and perhaps store or mitigate enough greenhouse gases to offset up to 20% or more of Australia’s emissions during the next 40 years.
The findings in this report by the CSIRO not only support the climate abatement feasibility of the coalition's direct action climate policy but contrast greatly with outcomes this government is foolishly accepting from the Renewable Energy Target scheme.
I have previously raised in the House the issue of the proliferation of wind turbine construction in the electorate of Hume. There are two major issues of contention with respect to wind turbine construction that are worth incorporating into this debate. The first is the misguided funding this government is providing for the construction of wind turbines through the Renewable Energy Fund and the second is the choice farmers and rural landholders are being forced to make with respect to the imposition of wind turbines on their properties. The most recent Productivity Commission report, titled Carbon emission policies in key economies and released on 9 June this year, made this statement on page XIV under the heading 'Key points':
Emissions trading schemes were found to be relatively cost effective, while policies encouraging small-scale renewable generation and biofuels have generated little abatement for substantially higher cost.
This statement by the Productivity Commission comprehensively slams the farcical claims by wind turbine industry bodies such as the Clean Energy Council that wind turbines are a viable and reliable alternative energy source to replace fossil fuels.
Wind turbine technology has proven to be neither cheap nor efficient when compared with our baseload coal technology or, as now illustrated in the CSIRO report, when compared with the potential for biosequestration to abate up to 20 per cent of Australia's total emissions over the next 40 years. According to a report this year by the Victorian Auditor-General, the cost per megawatt hour for wind turbine technology was between 80c and $1.20. This compares with a cost for brown coal of 35c—so wind is more than three times as expensive. Wind turbine developers are saying that they are going to supply enough clean electricity to power up to 180,000 homes in the electorate of Hume, preventing up to a million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution from entering the environment. That was in a 17 May 2011 press release from the wind farm at Rugby. What the developers and operators cannot and will not tell you is how they are going to produce that kind of energy when it has been proven that wind turbines operate at 30 per cent efficiency—and that is when the wind is blowing.
Biosequestration offers a serious carbon abatement alternative for the Australian government to pursue. That is why the coalition took this measure to the last election under our direct action policy and why we support this bill in principle. But a measure such as the Carbon Farming Initiative provides more than just another alternative for the Australian government; it provides landholders in the electorate of Hume with a real alternative to the construction of industrial wind turbines. I have been advocating on behalf of landholders and families in my electorate for an immediate moratorium on wind turbine construction throughout New South Wales. One of the aims of the moratorium is to give landholders in the sights of wind turbine developers a reprieve from disgraceful, predatory practices, such as orders of property acquisition and intimidation into signing confidentiality agreements, which some of these wind developers are subjecting landholders to.
After being subjected to 10 desperate years of drought, it is understandable that farmers in electorates such as mine are looking for a reliable source of income with the added benefit of contributing to the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. This bill seeks to create incentives for farmers and landholders to undertake voluntary land sector abatement projects. The government will provide saleable Australian carbon credit units in return for eligible carbon offset projects. Carbon farming would have additional environmental benefits such as reducing salinity and erosion, protecting biodiversity, regenerating landscapes, improving water quality and improving agricultural soil productivity. It may come as a surprise to many latte- sipping inner city bureaucrats on the left of the political spectrum that farmers in Australia have been managing and implementing sustainable soil measures for decades.
A biosequestration carbon farming initiative is in principle a sensible way for farmers and landholders to derive income from carbon abatement measures such as capturing and destroying methane emissions from landfill or livestock manure, or removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in soil or trees—for example, by growing a forest. Sensible and sustainable abatement measures such as these have the potential to abate 20 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years and mean farmers do not have to go down the destructive path of allowing the construction of industrial wind turbines on prime agricultural land. As a consequence of the misguided implementation of the Renewable Energy Fund, there has been an explosion of wind turbine applications in electorates such as mine. This would not be a problem except for the fact that government planning regulations in states such as New South Wales have failed to keep pace with the blitz of development applications. This failure to adequately regulate the implementation of green schemes effectively is the coalition's primary concern in supporting the government on this bill. Furthermore, this is why the member for Flinders has sought to amend this bill by requesting that the detail of the Carbon Farming Initiative bill be included in the legislation, rather than by regulation after the bill has been enacted.
Throughout my 23 years in both state and federal parliaments, I have adhered to a very simple principle: don't listen to what Labor say; look at what they do. Before the last election we had the Prime Minister declare, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' only to trash this commitment for political expediency and survival. The Treasurer claimed that the members of the coalition were making wildly hysterical claims in warning the Australian people that the Labor Party could not be trusted and that a carbon tax would be high on the government's agenda if re-elected; yet, aside from the untruths and deceit contained within the opaque words of this illegitimate government, it is their actions that cause the greatest consternation. This abject lack of policy detail is why Labor's carbon tax is being totally rejected by mainstream Australians. Without policy detail, why would the opposition even consider supporting this huge impost on Australian families already struggling with increasing cost-of-living pressures? The government's carbon tax will hit every Australian household. A carbon tax will unnecessarily lift electricity, grocery and petrol prices, and attack jobs in our key industries. According to recently released Treasury calculations, if the government decides to impose a $30 per tonne carbon price, the cost impact on households without petrol tax concessions would be $863 a year.
The Wollondilly region in the north of my electorate relies heavily on the jobs created by the coalmining sector. The chief executive of Australia's second largest metallurgical coal exporter, Anglo American Metallurgical Coal, has warned that a $25 per tonne carbon tax could put at risk 3,000 regional jobs in Queensland and New South Wales, as well as put at risk up to $2 billion in planned investment. A carbon tax of $26 a tonne would mean that 16 coalmines—some of which are in my electorate—would close, 23,000 mining jobs would be lost and 45,000 jobs would be lost in industries like steel, aluminium, cement, glass, chemicals and motor cars. To add further insult to Australian families, Labor's 2011-12 budget fails to give any details on the impact the carbon tax would have on cost-of-living pressures on families. The budget does, however, contain a $13.7 million taxpayer funded pro-carbon advertising blitz. The only details we have of the financial impact of the government's carbon tax is not the price per tonne nor the impacts on the costs of living but how much the government believes it needs to spend to ensure the carbon tax does not destroy its re-election chances.
The Gillard government's unilateral step to tax carbon dioxide emissions will send jobs offshore and hurt Australia's economy without improving the world's environment. By contrast, the coalition's Direct Action climate change policy will reduce emissions in a way that is economically responsible and that will not cost Australian jobs. The coalition's Direct Action plan will reduce emissions by five per cent by 2020 through creating a fund to buy back greenhouse emissions, through planting more trees and through better soils and smarter technology—principles that we support in this bill. However, the disastrous record of policy construction and implementation by the Rudd-Gillard governments is astounding. This is why, in good conscience and for the sake of good governance, the coalition could not allow this bill to go forward without the proposed amendment.
The Carbon Farming Initiative bill contains very little substantive policy detail, relying instead on regulation that will be outlined after the bill has been enacted. This is simply not good enough. The coalition will not be handing the most incompetent government in Australia's history a blank cheque to pay for another disastrous Home Insulation Program or to fund rorts such as those allowed under the Prime Minister's own school halls debacle. For these reasons, the coalition's amendment declines to give the bill a second reading until the regulations giving effect to the provisions of the bill are laid before the House.
I rise to support the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and cognate bills and to oppose the three amendments that are on the table. I start by saying that this is important work for those who do believe in land and place within Australian public policy. It is by no means the entire answer, but it is certainly one part, one chapter, one step along the journey to more productive land, both on-farm with food productivity and off-farm with biodiversity outcomes. For those in this chamber who value food production, who value Australia's unique ecosystem and who recognise the opportunities for co-benefits from legislation such as this and the overall push to see a price on carbon, this is an important step in telling the story—through this chamber—that land and Australia are important in policy development.
We are living at a time when all around the world there is a grappling with a science question, which is also an economic question. The economic question which hangs off the back of the much talked about science is the economic shift from labour productivity to resource productivity and how we move to an era, begrudgingly or otherwise, of maximising in a sustainable way productive outcomes from the resources. It is an era that will be about driving better environmental outcomes to achieve better economic outcomes. It is not about killing growth, it is not about killing economies and it is not about killing all the flow-on social benefits that come as a consequence of economic growth. It is about trying to grapple with the challenge that is before us as to how to maximise environmental outcomes in a sustainable way with the resources that we have to achieve that economic growth and the whole range of social benefits that come as a consequence.
As for this legislation in particular, I think Australia has a really valuable contribution to make in regard to the challenges and those economic questions that are before us as to how land, land mass, biodiversity and the storage of carbon in all its various forms, in a biological sense, can play a role in contributing to an overall response to both the economic question and the science question that are being put to every single country in the world. I think that, as Australia has a large land mass with degraded soils and older soils, this is an area in which Australia can lead and should not be afraid of leading, so making this the Australian contribution to the questions that are being put before all of us.
I have just had the opportunity to go and look at New Zealand 12 months into their emissions trading scheme with a large agriculture based economy. I expected to get some assistance in this area from them but what I found was that their gift to the global economic challenge has nothing to do with agriculture at all. It is about accrual accounting techniques and actually having their emissions trading scheme and the fiscal responsibilities that go with it on a budget so that everyone in the New Zealand community is very aware that one way or the other there will be a cost by not taking appropriate environmental action. Either you pay for it through an emissions trading scheme, with some sensible policy development in that area and some behaviour change amongst the heavier polluting industries, or that becomes a budget item and everyone gets whacked through their taxes. That is a sensible contribution to the economic and science questions that are being put before us. It is not what I expected to find.
What Australia's contribution really can be is in this land sector, particularly in the area of soil carbon. This is one possible contribution to that overall story from Australia. I do think we are progressing significantly in both the understanding of soil science and the accounting of soil science. There is definitely more work to be done but we are very close to not only the science being in but the accounting being in as well. These are potentially very exciting days if that work can progress well. But that should not necessarily shape policy now. I think this piece of legislation ticks the boxes. It is sound on the science, it is open to being sound on the questions of additionality and permanence; it certainly does not challenge those and it is certainly a transparent model, one with integrity. If we are looking to build a framework for the potential outcomes that we are looking for, a transparent accounting tool with integrity that deals well with the science and is very aware of and not challenging those two key questions around additionality and permanence, then I think we are building something that is a contribution to better policy for this country and for this topic.
I really do think it is in the soil and the land sector that we in Australia have a great opportunity, and it is for that reason that over the last six months I have been personally holding land use forums in this parliament and talking to a whole range of people who have been wanting to contribute to those discussions. It has been incredibly valuable for me and for policy development and, hopefully, for the debate that is currently unfolding before us. I would like to thank some of the participants in those forums. I will list some of them just to highlight the fact that there are a lot of people from a diverse range of community and business sectors who are really wanting to see this place deal with this issue in a sensible, strategic and efficient way. I refer to people such as Arek Sinanian from Parsons Brinckerhoff, who has been a champion on this topic for over 30 years. I have been in this chamber since 2008 and feel like I have been spilling blood all over the place on this topic for three years. I know there are others who have been fighting this for five years to 10 years, but people such as Arek have been hot on this topic for over 30 years. We need to at least listen to the valuable contribution that people such as Arek have to make. I refer also to Molly Harriss Olson, who is, I think, on the business roundtable that government has set up as part of pricing carbon. She has been an excellent contributor to policy outcomes in this area. The advice has been of great value. There is also Andrea Koch from the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. Her work in soil science has been world leading in the way that she has pulled together soil science conferences, the latest one having been in February, I think, this year. So world-leading advice is now coming from the University of Sydney in the area of soil science. I thank her for her advice as well. There are two more significant people that I would like to mention. One is Vincent Lange from Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticulture. I strongly urge those who believe in economic development on Aboriginal lands to have a look at the work that Centrefarm is doing just near Alice Springs. It is the regional development we all talk about in action. They are very strong in wanting to see some policy outcomes, not only through the Carbon Farming Initiative but through a suite of land use packages that can really start to value-add to the work that they are doing in a credible way right now.
The other person I would like to mention is Major General Michael Jeffery, along with the Wentworth group and Outcomes Australia. They have been very hot over a long period of time in identifying the importance and benefits for Australia of our developing policy in the area of land and soil science. I want to thank Major General Michael Jeffery, the Wentworth group and Outcomes Australia for their support and contribution as well.
So there are plenty of advocates in the field wanting us to do something strategic, efficient, smart and logical. This is the start of the journey. It is time for us all to have that bit of a wake-up call. I think the coalition's direct action policy is an attempt to identify this as an important area for Australia. I appreciate that. I therefore am a tad surprised that there is this want to oppose this legislation. I would have thought this legislation is complementary to the direction that the coalition policy conceptually wants to go in. I hope there will be some consideration about that. This is an opportunity for them to actually value-add rather than divide on the issue of the importance of soil science, land use and land management in Australia.
This is the start of the wake-up call. This is a recognition that soil does underpin life on planet Earth. It is a reality that we can quite often forget. We have all heard about peak oil. The term 'peak soil' is now entering the public policy debate. The soil science suggests that 100 years is what we have before topsoil is gone or threatened. With food production as one of the key issues globally, this is therefore an issue of great importance, for a number of different reasons. The five major issues that humanity faces are energy security, water, food, the environment and poverty. All five of those are directly or indirectly connected to the importance of soil. I hope that this is the start of Australia understanding that and starting to place a public policy benefit on that.
With the figure of about 40 per cent of global agricultural land seriously degraded, and with land degradation costing Australia alone probably about $3 billion per annum, we need to do some public policy push-back. Again, I hope that this is the start of the journey. The science can now predict soil carbon sequestration and stabilisation. There are recent advances in mathematical models that give reliable estimates. The interactions between the microbial communities in soil with carbon and the impacts on soil carbon pools are now being much better understood. The partitioning between the stable carbons of 100 to 10,000 years and those that will leach within 10 years is now being better understood, and the accounting tools are now in.
I re-emphasise the point that we can do this. The model is there, the science is certainly there and the mathematical and accounting tools are there. This is by no means the magic bullet. As I said at the start, this is one step, only one part of what I hope to be a suite of measures that is now starting to, in a public policy sense, recognise the shift of labour productivity to resource productivity that is the challenge before all economies, including ours.
For those that do believe that Australia matters, that land matters, this is the start of the opportunity to address that and place a value on that. I look forward to seeing more legislation of a similar nature pass through this parliament soon.
This is a debate that we should be having in Australia, and indeed globally, regardless of the discussion that is also raging about climate change. We all know that we have declining productivity in our soils, we have declining biomass and we have biodiversity problems right across the globe. There is no doubt that we must address problems that have been brought about by inappropriate farming techniques, by urban encroachment or by bad public policy right across the globe.
Today, though, we are particularly debating the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 and the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011. The problem is that this government just does not seem to be able to get it right when it comes to doing the hard work behind what should have been sensible moving-forward policy that delivers a better Australia. We have legislation before us with no regulations spelt out. We are told simply: 'Trust us. Sign this set of bills through and you'll find the details in the wash sometime down the track.' Unfortunately, Australians from a whole range of sectors no longer trust this government enough to simply say, 'We'll tick the big boxes and hope it all works out in the fine print.' That is not the way, we have discovered, that we can trust this government. We have seen a whole range of problems, from things which should have been small, like the pink batts program, through to things like Building the Education Revolution, where the outcomes could have been great but instead were a long litany of no real value for money and people's aspirations and communities being trampled for the sake of expediency and political opportunities.
Here we have legislation which describes how it is going to improve Australia's carbon sequestration, but it is very light on how that might happen. We fear it will in fact have very perverse outcomes. The coalition, of course, does have an alternative strategy and one which will make sure that we have a future of higher productivity for food and fibre production in our country. After all, as the previous speaker said, there is a major concern about the quantity and quality of food available for the growing global population, and Australia is very well positioned to lead in the production of food, both domestically and globally.
What have we got? We have a bill which seems to be fixated with growing more trees. All farmers know the value of protecting remnant vegetation, growing additional vegetation for biodiversity, protecting from soil erosion, providing supplementation as well as shade and shelter. No farmer willingly goes out and simply destroys vegetation without understanding exactly what the impact is for their bottom line and the environment. After all, the two are totally interrelated: a farmer's bottom line and the condition of their soils, water resources and air quality in terms of dust suppression and so on.
I grew up on the great treeless northern plains, known as the Tragowel Plains. There were only trees along the watercourses. That was not a consequence of farmers going out and cutting down everything that stood still; it was a consequence of, no doubt, hundreds, if not thousands, of generations of Indigenous use of that landscape—the burning regimes—and of natural phenomena. In 1836, Major Sir Thomas Mitchell described the area where I grew up as a treeless plain. Today, if you go there, you will see trees from horizon to horizon—in fact, there are trees all along the fence lines, the roadways and the channel check banks. Those trees were planted for salinity management and control. Some of them were effective; some were not. But the fact is that farmers will and do respond to what they are advised, and where they can see that tree planting is effective in improving landscape values and productivity.
But what we have in this bill are the sorts of suggestions and incentivisations which lead us instead to think about the old managed investment schemes. We all saw the disasters in parts of Victoria, particularly western Victoria, in parts of New South Wales certainly, and in parts of Western Australia where tree planting was incentivised on a commercial basis but at a huge cost to biodiversity. Disease was a serious risk where huge monocultures were established. In Tasmania, the same things were happening. We found that, once these enormous new forest tracts were planted, they were minimally managed or in some cases just airily sprayed from time to time, with serious consequences for neighbouring landscape. We do not want to see a monoculture of forestry established right across the Murray-Darling Basin, which is what the CSIRO has predicted might occur if a bill like this got through.
What we need is a whole raft of sensible strategies that lead to greater carbon farming initiatives and carbon sequestration. They would include things like biochar, no-till farming, perennial pastures and, of course, better feral animal control. Much of that control is on range lands and public lands, which farmers do not have immediate responsibility for. There will be many contributions from new genetics development, which will no doubt range from plant to animal genetics. In the future it will help that crops and animals can thrive in different seasonal regimes from those that we have now.
We want to see a whole range of strategies developed and supported in this country that deal with greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, improve our environmental sustainability and productivity. The two can go hand in hand. In fact, we have to walk down the path of a win-win scenario. Unfortunately, the rules in relation to carbon sequestration and carbon credits detailed in Labor 's bill indicate that you cannot have a business-as-usual scenario. You have to do something new and different or extra in order to get recognition for your efforts. What if you have been doing your no-till farming for a number of years? Is it just the very late adopters of that practice who will be rewarded for their late adoption? That is a nonsense. What if a whole range of new strategies, processes or methodologies that were developed by our excellent research and development organisations came up in the future? Under this legislation, we understand that farmers will have to lock themselves into a 100-year initiative. They will have to sign up to undertake, for example, a particular strategy or plant a particular range of forestry product and not disturb it for 100 years. How absurd! What farmer, what individual, what business can do that? And why would they do that, when they know that there is a very fast evolution of best practice, always, particularly in Australia, which is known for its innovative agricultural practice?
It is very distressing and concerning for our farming population to see an opportunity like this missed, to see another well-meaning, no doubt, but misguided attempt to try and do right for this country. We have examples of what can go very wrong when we incentivise the wrong systems in this country—for example, agriforestry through MIS schemes. We know that there is absolutely no room in Australia for further disturbing our capacity for groundwater regeneration. We know that a lot of additional tree planting does disturb or use up groundwater accessions. We are concerned about who is going to manage our landscape if a lot more fuel load is in that landscape for wildfires. We already have in the Barmah Forest, for example, some of the biggest black water evidence events on record, which were man-made as a consequence of bad public management of the biggest red gum forest in the world. That was a consequence of mismanagement of agriforestry resources and a lack of understanding about how to manage controlled burns and grazing in that forest. There is not, unfortunately, in Australia a history of governments, especially Labor governments, doing the right thing by agribusiness. The farming community in my region is very conscious of the need to farm effectively. We know about environmental sustainability. We know about landcare. For example, my region pioneered a lot of the early landcare and soil conservation works. It is a tragedy that those programs have been defunded. Our volunteers are exhausted after years of drought and now flood, but there is no government support for their facilitators to manage Landcare volunteers and that is a tragedy. We hope with a change of government and a return to the coalition that we will be able to restore the remnants of the Landcare movement. We hope, too, that the work of the Natural Heritage Trust—which did such excellent work in biodiversity protection, in weed control and in helping with Indigenous Protected Areas—will recommence with a government that understands and cares.
We cannot as a coalition support this bill. We have amendments and we urge this government to look at those amendments. We want this country to have a farming regime which involves very much greater carbon sequestration. We want our farmers to participate in the carbon credit trading which may evolve as time goes by. We are very conscious of what has happened in New Zealand. New Zealanders are our closest brothers and also our competitors in the commercial world of exporting. We know that those farmers are already suffering thousands of dollars per year in loss of competitive advantage because of poor policy in their country.
We urge this government to look harder at what they are trying to do here. I acknowledge it is well meaning but, unfortunately, it is misguided. It is not good legislation. It leaves the detail to regulation. We cannot trust this government to get regulation right. We need to see the i's dotted and the t'scrossed. There is so much at stake. We cannot expect any sector of our society to lock itself into any practices for a 100-year stretch. That is just a nonsense. It flies in the face of all we know about the evolution of science and best practice.
We know that our country can be one of the great food providers for this and following centuries. We want to do the hard work. We have already moved to change the malpractice suggested in the guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a suggestion to end irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin as we know it. This government is already responding positively to an alternative plan which will not simply decimate irrigated agricultural communities. I put to them that they should look at these bills again, look at the realities, take advice from the CSIRO, consider the work of the Australian Farm Institute, look at the best practice among our farm families in Australia today and do not handicap them as they compete domestically and internationally. Make sure that we can do our best to deal with climate changes and Australia's seasonal variability and also that we can do our best as good global citizens. What is proposed here is simply paying lip-service to what is a very complex problem and it is simply not going to serve the needs of our nation or our global systems. It is simply going to leave our country once again with bad policy and inadequacy. Quite frankly, our country deserves and must have much better.
I am very please to speak in support of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and against this amendment. This is a subject I am extremely passionate about, representing a region where this issue is going to land most significantly. My own family have been dairy farming in the Eden-Monaro region for 160 years and have done it tough through the recent drought and the tough times, as I know a number of members have experienced and understand. Yesterday, the member for Gippsland was expressing concern for me as to whether or not I was stepping up to the plate on these issues and having to tow the party line. I really appreciate the concern of the member. He is a good bloke, but let me reassure him that this is a subject I am passionate about and I am sincerely advocating a bipartisan approach to this issue. I really believe it is an issue on which we can be bipartisan. We do not want political point scoring—this is just too important for our farmers, for the nation and for the world.
It has been a great privilege for me to have listened to the contributions by the member for New England and the member for Lyne, both of whom represent the voices of reason in this chamber. They are obviously amplified in the current circumstances and that is a good thing. The member for New England has great expertise, as a farmer himself, and when you hear him talk on these issues, you are not hearing a partisan political point of view; you are hearing the voice of reason. We should heed that voice of reason because now is the time for us to act.
This Carbon Farming Initiative is a policy intersection. A lot of issues come together here—food security, the carbon price and the future of our farming in the way we deal with drought and productivity in the agricultural sector. In the coming weeks we have a serious meeting of the G20 agricultural ministers, followed by a very important FAO meeting in Rome, as well as the gathering of the Global Research Alliance ministerial summit. That in particular is highly relevant to the discussion we are having here.
People are trying desperately internationally to come to grips with food security. It is one of the most serious challenges the world faces with growing population, the effects of climate change and the loss of arable land. The Global Research Alliance is looking in particular at agricultural greenhouse gases. We have been a very active participant in that process and certainly through our own carbon farming research and through the processes of the climate change research program we have played a very vital role in the elimination of nitrous oxide emissions—a highly significant contributor to our overall emissions story. Coming to grips with it will aid our position and also the world's efforts as we contribute our ideas and the outcomes of our research to this issue.
Australia needs to be part of this story. We have been part of the international agricultural story through our foundation participation in the FAO. So obviously there is a great story to be had here. This is something the coalition members who purport to represent regional areas and the rural sector of this country need to understand. I know there have been issues raised about accountability, management of this system and prevention of speculation et cetera. A vast range of safeguards are built into this framework. We have the administrator, who will manage the processes of the Australian carbon units, which will represent a tonne of emissions, and the depositing of those units into regulated accounts. That will be complemented by the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee, which will manage the process of approving the methodologies. That is the dual responsibility involved in this process. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is managing the establishment of the market processes and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will also contribute its input on methodologies. Those methodologies will be subject to the sign-off of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee in advising the minister—so the minister must take the advice of this committee.
In addition to the safeguards that are in-built in that respect, there will be auditing of this program put in place. It will be a robust auditing framework, providing buyers with confidence that the offsets are genuine abatement. That will be established under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Audit Act. All audits required by the legislation must be undertaken by greenhouse and energy auditors who are registered under that act, so there will be very significant safeguards built into this process.
When we talk about this issue, as the member for New England highlighted, we are talking about productivity gains. There are many challenges out there in the landscape at the moment. We have seen people trying to come to grips with this—and the member for Lyne mentioned Major General Jeffery—through the natural sequence farming initiative. But there needs to be understanding of how important some of these measures are for productivity. For example, revegetation is something that a lot of our farmers have taken up, understanding that devegetation and deforestation have caused significant deterioration of their properties. Revegetation can assist in building windbreaks. It will help contravene erosion of the soils. (Quorum formed) I can understand why a quorum would be called in the middle of these very essential points: they embarrass the coalition because they are so important to the people whom they purportedly represent.
I was talking about the importance of some of the measures that will be accredited under this regime, including revegetation. Revegetation is important for building windbreaks on properties, it is important for combating erosion of the soil, it is important in providing shade for livestock and it is important for improving the quality of water catchments on properties. These are investments that are going to improve land as well as leading to abating carbon emissions and earning credits under this regime.
We have heard a lot of talk about carbon sequestration in the soils. This offers huge potential for us as well. We are at present commissioning and promoting a lot of research into these things. We have over 70 different types of biochar under analysis, and there will be great potential in that, as Mr Garnaut has highlighted. Even if we realise only a part of that potential, it will be an enormous contribution to this story. There is some concern about soils possibly losing that storage. But under this scheme that risk for the farmer is entirely eliminated due to the risk reversal buffer system whereby five per cent of the ACCUs issued will be held in security against the loss of carbon in those soil situations. Of course, farmers would lose the income from that stored carbon and would be required to re-establish the stores, but they would not be penalised for any loss of carbon in that respect.
We know that carbon is very important for the health of the soil. We know that carbon helps retain moisture in the soil and is a key nutrient. A lot of the farming practices that have been adopted over the last few centuries have been counterproductive to the health of the soil because they have denuded carbon, and therefore we need to take dramatic action to stop that. Under this system farmers will have tradeable credit. I heard reference to the fact that there were issues to do with Landcare. Well Landcare has been a high priority for this government and Landcare is going to be at the heart of helping to deliver this scheme. As this process unfolded we had a forum earlier this year in March where we had 56 Landcare facilitators who were being trained in the concept. Since that time we have been developing a training regime for those Landcare facilitators and now we have 85 people involved in that program who will be associated with the 56 natural resource management regions. They will be deployed to conduct a wide range of workshops with landholders out to 2014 as soon as this legislation is in place. Those facilitators will be out there helping farmers to aggregate and to deal with carbon-trading companies to diversify their income base as well as gain these productivity benefits. They will be associated in that process with other experts.
We have seen, as Mr Garnaut said, that this is essential for farming. It offers the potential to make a large contribution to our emissions reductions, but Mr Garnaut also highlighted the possibility and the potential that this sector could achieve from a carbon farming initiative, which could be the equivalent of a new wool industry. Mr Garnaut highlighted that there is potential for a $2.25 billion industry based on this. I certainly would not claim this is a panacea for all the issues that face our farmers, but the National Farmers' Federation have certainly understood how important this is and fully endorse it. They have stated that:
The legislation has also addressed NFF concerns around potential perverse outcomes in relation to food production, water, local communities, employment …
The concern has been raised about the possibility of driving the uptake of arable land for use in revegetation. We know that will not happen. The managed investment schemes have been listed in the negative lists and will not be part of this scheme. Also, all proposals have to be in line with the natural resource management plans for regions, which is the mechanism by which communities can have input into that process. The minister himself can analyse each and every methodology and proposal in relation to the consequences they will have for issues of water management and management of arable land. Bear in mind that this government is also in the process of developing a national food plan, which will also intersect with determinations in this respect.
The issue of taking up arable land for carbon sink uses and revegetation is simply not a concern or a risk. It will be managed within the context of the scheme. It is an issue that has been raised in the process of developing the framework. So this is a spurious issue. It is highly hypocritical of the coalition to raise it as an issue when we know as a fact that their own proposals for inaction—they call it direct action, but in reality it is inaction—would in fact take up 20 million hectares of the Australian landmass, which is 63 per cent, most of our arable land, and be totally unsustainable in that respect. It is entirely hypocritical for them to raise that issue in this context. It will be well and truly catered for. The coalition members opposite who purport to represent the men and women on the land in this country need to come on board with this legislation. It needs to be done now for the future of farming in Australia.
As the member for Eden-Monaro was the final speaker, I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 and the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011. I would also like to thank the members for Lyne, Denison, New England and Melbourne for their contributions to the debate on these bills.
The Carbon Farming Initiative is a key part of the Gillard government's climate change agenda. Under this scheme for the first time the federal government will help facilitate the sale of carbon credits on domestic and international markets. The scheme will begin to unlock abatement opportunities in the land sector, a sector which currently accounts for around a quarter of Australia's emissions. It will contribute to improving farm productivity, creating jobs in the regions, providing new opportunities for Indigenous communities, enhancing our biodiversity and building resilience to the impacts of climate change.
The Carbon Farming Initiative provides a framework which is grounded in the science of climate change and provides clear economic value to actions which store or reduce carbon pollution. It will create new, real and lasting economic opportunities for regional communities. Farmers and landholders will be rewarded for their actions to reduce or store carbon pollution. By 2020, the credits that are created from this initiative each year are likely to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars for regional and rural Australia. (Quorum formed)
I take this opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised. There has been much said by those opposite about the threat to prime agricultural land from tree planting. The government is confident that prime agricultural land is not at risk and that the legislative structure will prevent perverse outcomes. First, while permanent tree plantations will be rewarded, these must take into account applicable natural resource management plans. Secondly, all state, territory and Commonwealth requirements must be complied with, including any water entitlements which may be required. Thirdly, managed investment schemes will not be eligible because short-rotation commercial forestry will fail the common practice test, and management investment schemes will be explicitly excluded. Fourthly, the economics of carbon credits are such that land use change is likely to occur on marginal agricultural land, as evidenced by recent estimates of abatement by my department and the CSIRO.
It must also be remembered that the Carbon Farming Initiative is not just about tree planting but also covers a range of agricultural practices which reduce emissions, such as better fertiliser use, manure management and enhancing soil carbon. Many of these practices increase the productivity of prime agricultural land and this initiative will provide a new income stream for those who take up new and more sustainable farming practices.
This bill includes provision to exclude activities that carry a high risk of adverse outcomes on the environment or local communities through a 'negative list', which will be contained in regulations. The government will include activities on the negative list that pose a significant risk for the availability of water, to the conservation of biodiversity, to employment or to local communities. These activities will not be eligible to receive carbon credits under the Carbon Farming Initiative.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has undertaken a first pass risk assessment of carbon forest activities and released this for public comment. The government's position is that the following activities should be on the negative list: establishing vegetation on land cleared of native vegetation since 1 July 2007—this will remove the risk of a perverse incentive to clear native vegetation in order to establish a carbon forest; establishing a known weed species—this will remove the risk that invasive species will be part of carbon projects; establishing forest in conditions where it would risk impacts on the availability of water—this will remove the risk that carbon plantings will affect environmental flows for other water users; establishing a forest as part of a managed investment scheme—this will remove the risk of distortions to markets for agricultural land.
The government recognises the need to monitor issues that may be raised with crediting methodologies and will engage with local government, natural resource management bodies and other stakeholders on whether additional activities should be added to the negative list. The government also recognises the need to act promptly with respect to these issues to ensure that perverse outcomes for biodiversity or agricultural land use are avoided.
Negative list activities, and the circumstances in which they apply, will be tightly defined to avoid prohibiting low-risk projects.
The Carbon Farming Initiative has been designed to minimise the possibility of adverse outcomes from abatement projects. The consultation processes on the regulations will ensure comprehensive opportunities for public and parliamentary scrutiny.
With key regulations and the first methodologies now published, there is no reason to delay the passage of these bills. Investment in further methodologies and the underpinning science is dependent upon stakeholders having certainty that the initiative will actually go ahead. That is why it is essential for this parliament to pass these bills and not continue to find excuses for delay. It is a great shame that the opposition has blown so hot and cold on the Carbon Farming Initiative, having first called on all sides of politics to embrace the proposal and now, at the eleventh hour, capitulating to the views of the Nationals and walking away from that commitment.
The environmental integrity of the Carbon Farming Initiative is essential to the value and credibility of the credits that are created. The government recognises that some types of carbon projects can indirectly cause emissions elsewhere in the economy through the effect of 'leakage'. For example, a project based on preventing logging in part of our native forest estate could lead to an increase in logging elsewhere in the country, if demand for timber remains. If unaddressed, leakage can reduce or even obviate abatement from such projects.
The regulatory framework includes requirements for streamlined accounting treatments for leakage to be incorporated in methodologies. The department is currently developing mandatory guidance to establish the accounting rules for dealing with leakage. This will be based on a discounting approach which identifies the likely risk and extent of leakage for projects based on forecasts about supply and demand in the relevant market. The government will work closely with key stakeholders to develop this guidance.
Another key to environmental integrity is the 'risk of reversal' buffer. The government has recognised the need to keep this under review as further evidence is gathered of the potential risks. The CSIRO is well placed to do further work in this area. Similarly, the permanence requirements, which are relevant only for sequestration projects, will also be monitored in light of international consensus on these issues. It has also been said, incorrectly, that there is little in carbon farming for the Northern Territory. There is in fact a wealth of opportunities for Carbon Farming Initiative offsets in the Northern Rangelands. Australia's rangelands carry significant biodiversity values, but in many cases these have been degraded as a result of overgrazing and the proliferation of feral animals. Restoration of these rangelands will provide carbon as well as biodiversity benefits and create new revenue streams for landholders. Landholders will be able to receive credit for increasing carbon stores on rangelands through increasing soil carbon, establishing new vegetation, protecting existing vegetation by fencing off stock or reducing land clearing and removing feral animals. Reducing numbers of feral animals, including camels, feral cattle and feral buffalo, also reduces methane emissions. These emissions reductions can also generate Carbon Farming Initiative credits.
Management of savannah fires is another significant opportunity to generate carbon credits. The Carbon Farming Initiative will provide incentives for land managers to undertake strategic fire management across the north. As well as reducing emissions, fire management increases biodiversity and will generate jobs in remote communities. The government is committed to ensuring Indigenous Australians can participate and benefit from the Carbon Farming Initiative. The first methodology to be released for public comment under the Carbon Farming Initiative is the one I mentioned: savannah fire management. That is a methodology that could inject over $2 million of revenue each year into projects such as those in west Arnhem Land.
The member for Lyne spoke of the potential importance of the Carbon Farming Initiative to Indigenous Australia. The government is consulting with Indigenous Australians through a working group that I am chairing to work through implementation issues with the initiative. I am committed to ensuring that Indigenous Australians do stand to benefit. To this end, clarifying the consent rights of non-exclusive-possession native title holders will be important.
The government also recognises that other groups may need to be prescribed by regulation as having eligible interests. In particular, those who hold mining leases over an area of land have a legitimate interest in projects involving the same area of land and will be prescribed as an eligible interest. The government also accepts the need to work with natural resource management bodies to improve the consistency of regional planning. The government recognises the need to help build carbon literacy among landholders and has already engaged Landcare facilitators to communicate the benefits and responsibilities involved with the initiative to interested landholders. The government will continue to work with landholders, including Indigenous leaders, to ensure that they have the greatest ability to capitalise on the benefits of this very substantial opportunity for regional Australia.
In conclusion, the bills before the House today will provide real opportunities to regional and rural Australia to be part of the climate change solution. We appreciate that in this sector we need to learn more about the potential abatement opportunities by making a start with the Carbon Farming Initiative and getting projects off the ground.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hunt's amendment) stand part of the question.
The House divided. [11:45]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [11:52]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise on behalf of the coalition to comment on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011 and I acknowledge the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the House this morning. There are three schedules to the bill. The opposition will not oppose the bill but will certainly move in the Senate for the bill, especially schedule 2, to be examined by a Senate committee to more fully understand the issue of the offsetting of compensation under multiple acts and to allow the various ex-service organisations, DSOs, to further provide any comment to the parliament on their view of the offsetting of compensation.
Before I move into the substantive detail of the bill, it is instructive, as we deal with veterans' entitlements, to let the House know that a mere hour ago the Senate decided to vote against the private member's bill in the name of Senator Ronaldson which would have provided fair, just and equitable indexation for defence pensions—DFRDB and DFRB—and would have brought them into line not only with the CPI but with the living cost index and with male total average weekly earnings, currently set at a bit above 27½ per cent. The private member's bill was put into the Senate in honour of the coalition's election promise that we would index pensions for those on DFRDB and DFRB to bring them into line with age pensions. It was our intent that we would rectify an injustice. Using the government's own words, today could be seen as 'fundamental injustice day' for the veterans of this nation—57,000 of them that have served in their nation's uniform for over 20 years.
In 2007, the Labor government went to the polls stating they would seek a fairer and more equitable indexation of defence pensions. That was their policy. That is what the soon-to-be Prime Minister Rudd, then the opposition leader, took to the Australian people. He stood there and promised that that was what he would provide the veterans. Whilst there was no opportunity for that government to come to this House and honour that promise, because they chose not to take that opportunity, we stood up with the courage of our convictions and told the veterans we would seek to legislate it and in the Senate we did that, but an hour ago the government joined by the Greens and Senator Xenophon chose to knock it down.
What I find particularly vexing is the hypocrisy and the effrontery of the Greens, who in the 2010 election went to the nation to say they would support equitable indexation of defence pensions. It was their election policy; they told the Australian people they would support it. People, I am sure, voted for them at face value. The Greens had the opportunity to do it, and they decided against it. Senator Bob Brown clearly looked for where the savings were. We estimated the cost over four years at about $98 million; the government said $175 million. Let us not quibble over the numbers, Minister. We presented to the Greens and to the Senate savings of up to $280 million by slowing the rise of public servants from about 12.7 to 8.4 per cent. Over the forward estimates, that would have saved almost $260 million. The Minister for Defence thought that was such a great idea that he took it himself and announced it as savings. The Greens wanted savings, they were given the savings and in the hour of the veterans' need the Greens, the Labor Party and Senator Xenophon were found wanting. At a time when they had the opportunity to stand up for the promises they had made to the Australian people, they were found wanting. At a time when vulnerable veterans needed the government and the Greens the most, they were found wanting.
Let it be known that the opposition will continue to honour the promise it made in the 2010 election. We will take it to the next election that we will index DFRDB and DFRB pensions by not only the CPI but MTAWE and the new living cost index, because we are a party that honours its promises. That is the difference between the 'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead' Labor Party and the opposition that honours its promise. When we say at an election campaign that we will do something, guess what—we will do it. We will not pull a stunt like that of the member for Lindsay in a land locked electorate who just prior to the last election was seen on an Armidale class patrol boat with the Prime Minister as if to say, 'I am strong on borders.' Guess what, member for Lindsay: you do not have a bloody border with the ocean—you are landlocked. What were you doing in Darwin on a naval warship apart from trying to show the Australian people, in some farcical way, that your party is strong on borders?
How many—over 10,000 illegal people and over 225 illegal boats? Spare me 'strong on borders'! The coalition opposition will honour its promise. And the world and the nation knows that today, an hour ago, you decided not to honour your promise—and there is no running from it and there is no hiding from it, Minister. The veteran community know that you had the opportunity to honour your promise and you walked away from them. That is called fundamental injustice day, Minister.
Moving on to the bill, schedule 1 of this bill provides for a $500 fortnightly payment to former Australian prisoners of war. Schedule 2 clarifies the operation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 with respect to the offsetting of compensation under multiple acts. Schedule 3 rationalises temporary incapacity allowances for veterans. As I have said, the coalition will not be voting against the bill in the House but we will seek to refer it to a Senate committee to further explore—particularly schedule 2—and to give veterans organisations the opportunity to fully understand and explore the concept of offsetting of compensation under acts.
In terms of schedule 1, from 20 September this year former Australian prisoners of war will each receive a $500 payment each fortnight from the Australian government. It will be made to former military personnel and civilians who were taken prisoners of war during World War II and the Korean War. The payment will not be taxable and it will not affect a former POW's present access to income support under the VEA and the Social Security Act, or compensation payments under the VEA. It is considered a 'non-taxable supplement'. I am led to believe there are 900 Australians known by the department to be ex-prisoners of war. All known ex-prisoners of war will automatically receive the payment, which they will receive from 6 October. The coalition certainly supports the minister on this move.
I will put on the record that, as the minister would acknowledge, the coalition has a strong record of providing assistance to Australia's ex-prisoners of war. In 2001, all former Japanese prisoners of war received a $25,000 tax-free, ex gratia payment from the Australian government. It was extended in 2003 to former Korean prisoners of war and, in 2007, to former German and Italian prisoners of war, who received similar payments. I am sure this move will be extremely welcomed by those Australian POWs who are eligible for the payment and by their families. I am certainly glad to be supporting the minister on this very worthwhile endeavour that he is moving to on schedule 1.
Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to clarify the operation of compensation provisions under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Compensation offsetting is indeed a longstanding principle under our repatriation system. The fundamental principle of the system is that compensation is paid for incapacity, not for a specific injury. The coalition believes that the changes proposed by this schedule should be investigated by a Senate committee to fully understand and to fully explore whether there are any unintended consequences or any issues that need to be teased out of some of these moves in schedule 2 to deal with the compensation offsetting. We will seek to refer the bill to enable the ex-service community to have an opportunity to have their input into the proposed changes. I think that is fair and reasonable.
Schedule 3 will rationalise the way incapacity payments are paid under the act. The changes in the bill will remove the temporary incapacity allowance. Instead of receiving this allowance payment, veterans will be entitled to seek access to the loss of earnings allowance, the LOE allowance. The LOE is paid where the veteran accrues an actual loss of earnings as a result of hospitalisation or treatment of accepted disabilities or illnesses. We are not opposed to the rationalisation. However, as I look at the Minister for Veterans' Affairs I certainly call on him to ensure that the changes are appropriately communicated to the veterans and ex-service community. Minister, if there were ever a time for the government to spend some money on advertising or on getting a message across, this would be it. Ditch the climate change nonsense in terms of that advertising and spend some money on this, Sir. Ensure that the changes are appropriately communicated so veterans understand fully exactly what is being proposed. When it comes to the veteran community, there is certainly nothing like ensuring people are well and truly informed, to take away any risks and to take away any anxiety they may indeed have when it comes to change. Much change is good. It is better when it is communicated well.
In terms of wider veterans issues, the minister and I have discussed this matter at length in consideration in detail on the budget, a mere day or two ago, but it is worth reiterating to the House some of the concerns that the coalition continues to have about how the government is working through the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. With credit to the minister, he is a very busy minister: he is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Minister for Indigenous Health and the minister assisting with respect to the Anzac Day celebrations. I can only wonder what else the Prime Minister has given such a busy, busy minister. Our view though is that Veterans Affairs' is of such importance that there should be a minister dedicated to it. Defence science, technology and personnel—when we are at war—is such a busy ministry that there should be a minister attached to it. When it comes to Indigenous Health, such a significant issue in its own right, it should be either attached to another portfolio or indeed perhaps another parliamentary secretary. So what we have is a minister really doing the job of three ministers—
Which he is capable of!
No doubt, as some could say. Some could say that the minister sitting here in front of me has the capacity to do that—but, seriously, three jobs for a full-time minister on one set of shoulders? Something always has to give, Minister. It may not be your fault, Minister, as the problem lies with the Prime Minister, who has so loaded you down with work that perhaps you are unable to provide the full set of oversight that you know is necessary in the portfolio. I say that because we are deeply disappointed there is no money in the budget for the commemoration of the Anzac Day centenary. I know you are looking to announcements at the end of the year. However, there is no money in the budget so an announcement with no money makes it a little difficult for you to spend a cent, Minister, up until 30 June next year. Communities across Australia need certainty about the availability of funding.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am loath to do this because I am entertained, but I would ask that the shadow minister come back to the bill that we are actually discussing, which would be useful.
Certainly being entertained is not one of the standing orders, so I will ask the shadow minister to come back to the topic of the bill.
I will return to the bill, which looks at veterans entitlements, and it goes to the very nature of veteran entitlements that the minister has the capacity to ensure that the schedules within the bill are indeed capable of being met. It is therefore incumbent upon me as part of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to actually outline where this minister, who I have led to, is so overworked that he lacks the capacity in hours of time to be able to lend his full attention to the portfolio to ensure these schedules are met. And it is incumbent on me that I outline to the parliament the areas where this very busy minister is being shown to have let down in dealing with veterans entitlements because of the busyness.
I will interrupt the shadow minister to say that I appreciate the link he is drawing but I do think it is a rather tenuous link and I would ask him to more directly address the topic of the bill.
I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we can move on to the Australian War Memorial, which of course—
I am sorry, I am going to stop the shadow minister. I appreciate the attempt to draw the longer bow but I am indicating to you it is not an acceptable longer bow and I would ask you to come back to the actual details of the bill before us. I ask you to come back to the contents of the bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am feeling unduly constrained. However, in deference to the House, for which I have great respect, I will simply wrap up. Whilst we do not deny the bill its second reading and will be seeking to move into a Senate inquiry to more fully understand it, it is important for the minister to understand that we will continue to scrutinise areas of veterans entitlements that this bill seeks to move into with great detail. We will continue to scrutinise any cuts to other areas of veterans or indeed the War Memorial funding. We will seek to scrutinise the $8 million cut from grassroots veterans advocacy funding. We will continue to hold you to account for the full areas of your portfolio and how it is managed.
That was the most animated, boorish contribution I have heard in a long time. It was great to hear that the shadow minister acknowledged that he is not capable of being able to match the great work ethic and great capabilities of the minister at the table. So we appreciate his honesty for admitting he is not up to the job.
I rise to support the government's Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill because this bill is an important initiative to show our gratitude and respect to these worthy Australians, many of whom live in my electorate. The bill will give effect to a number of veterans affairs measures that will create a prisoner of war recognition supplement. It will clarify the original intention of the compensation offsetting policy in relation to disability pension and rationalise temporary incapacity allowance and loss of earning allowance. As part of the Gillard government's 2011-12 budget we announced that the POWR supplement of $500 will be made fortnightly to surviving former POWs. This supplement is in recognition of the severe hardship and deprivations that former POWs experienced when serving our nation. This bill will provide a tax-free supplement with exempt income for the purposes of veterans entitlements in the social security income test. It will be indexed annually in line with the consumer price index. This payment is in addition to the ex gratia payment of $25,000 already made to most of the former POWs or their widows or widowers and the existing benefits a person may already receive from the government. (Quorum formed)
Once again it shows the calibre of the opposition in just wanting to stop, block and say no. When it comes to talking about entitlements for veterans they just leave the country wanting. The shadow minister scurries from the chamber after that embarrassing effort of his.
None of us can fully comprehend the abhorrent conditions that the vast majority of POWs experienced. We are all well aware that POWs were subject to horrific conditions and many returned home with physical and psychological scars that stayed with them for the rest of their lives. More than 30,000 Australians became POWs between 1940-45 alone. The Germans and Italians captured Australians during the Mediterranean-Middle East campaigns as well as those in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. Members of RAAF crews who had bailed out during operations over Germany, occupied-Europe or North Africa also became POWs. Of the 8,000 Australians taken prisoner by the Germans and Italians, 265 died during their captivity. During the Pacific War, the Japanese captured 22,000 Australians—soldiers, sailors, airmen, members of the Army Nursing Service as well as some civilians. They were imprisoned in camps throughout Japanese-occupied territories in Borneo, Korea, Ambon, Singapore, Timor, Java, Thailand, Burma, Vietnam and in Japan itself. At the end of the war, only 13,872 of the POWs were recovered. So, approximately, and very sadly, one-third of the prisoners had died. A generation of men and women who went to war to protect our freedoms, defend our country and liberate oppression across the globe, ended up fighting for their own survival and that of their mates in POW camps across the globe in conditions that we can only shudder to think about.
If I say the service number VX39234, it would have little meaning to the House, but this is the service number given to George Henry Mitchell—a man whom I am proud to call my grandfather. He was a gunner in the 2/3 Anti-Tank Regiment. He saw active service in Africa, Borneo and notably in the Tobruk siege—one of our most significant and hard-fought battles of the Second World War. Fortunately for my family, my grandfather never became a POW, but I recently read about and have taken interest in another member of the 2/3 Anti-Tank Regiment, Herbert Hawley, who unfortunately did become a POW.
Herbert Hawley enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force on 7 November 1939. He was posted to the 2/3rd Field Regiment in May 1940, after training at Ingleburn, near Sydney. He sailed with his regiment to England, where he was stationed at Salisbury. In December, he left England for the Middle East and then was moved to Greece, where his regiment came under heavy attack from the German Luftwaffe and Panzer divisions. His regiment was evacuated to Suda Bay, Crete. There they defended an airstrip against German paratroopers but, just 10 days later, they were forced to surrender, and Herbert Hawley became a POW. Herb arrived in Wolfsburg prison camp in August 1941 and spent the next four years as a POW in Germany. He was sent to various locations and joined working parties on roads, farms and repairing and laying railway lines. In May 1945, when the Germans surrendered, Herb was at Spittal, working on bomb damaged railway trucks and tracks. He was repatriated to England through Italy and arrived home in Australia three months later. Unlike many others, Herb was reunited with his family.
Twenty-nine Australians were taken as POWs in Korea, including two officers. The treatment of Australian POWs in Korea was generally better than that meted out by the Japanese to POWs during the Second World War. However, there were many Australian POWs who were kept in appalling conditions. At the time, Captain Phillip Greville (later Brigadier Greville) 1RAR, wrote:
Many prisoners became filthy, full of lice, festered with wounds full of maggots, unshaven and without haircuts for months on end and were faced with squads of trained interrogators, bullied, deprived of sleep and browbeaten. Of the 100-odd flyers subjected to this kind of treatment, 38 signed 'confessions', believing them to be so silly that no one would believe them.
That is a terrible story to read about the suffering our soldiers faced during this time of conflict. We all know the courage and bravery of those who survived internment at Japanese POW camps, particularly in places like Changi.
The name Changi is synonymous with the suffering of Australian prisoners held by the Japanese during the Second World War. This is ironic, since for most of the war in the Pacific, Changi was in reality one of the most benign of the Japanese POW camps. Its privations were relatively minor compared to those of others, particularly those on the Burma-Thailand railway. In May 1944, all the Allied prisoners in Changi, which included some 5,000 Australians, were concentrated in the immediate environs of Changi Gaol, which up until this time had been used to detain civilian internees. In this area, some 11,700 prisoners were crammed into less than a quarter of a square kilometre. This period established Changi's place in popular memory. Rations were cut, camp life was increasingly restricted and, in July, the authority of Allied senior officers over their troops was revoked. Changi was liberated by troops of the 5th Indian Infantry Division on 5 September 1945 and, within a week, troops were being repatriated after a torrid period of emasculation and humiliation at the hands of their captors.
Earlier this year, I noted that the Japanese foreign minister formally apologised to a group of Australian former prisoners of war for the pain and suffering they experienced during World War II. Rowley Richards, aged 94, said that the important thing to their members was the official apology and, years on, POWs received the apology they were looking for. The Foreign Minister told the five diggers that 'he was sorry from the bottom of his heart for their treatment'. 'As I understood it, it was deep and expressed great remorse for the suffering that was inflicted on us and it was a very moving experience,' said 89-year-old Norm Anderton, who was used as slave labour on the Thai-Burma railway.
That is why the bill is important. This measure is worth $27.2 million over four years, with payments beginning automatically in September 2011. In addition to the benefits available to other veterans, other benefits for POWs include an ex gratia payment of $25,000; DVA payment of Residential Aged Care packages, which provide care similar to low-care residential facilities in the veteran's home; DVA payment of fees for Extended Aged Care at Home; and Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia packages; automatic Gold Card and funeral benefits; and automatic granting of a war widow/widowers pension to the partner upon the death of the former POW.
The bill will make amendments to compensation offsetting provisions in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Compensations offsetting is a statutory provision which ensures that a person is not compensated twice under separate schemes for the same incapacity. It also ensures equity between a claimant who is entitled to compensation for a level of incapacity under two schemes, compared to a claimant who is entitled to compensation for the same level of incapacity under only one scheme. The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 is to both clarify and affirm this existing policy. As I said, Australian prisoners of war numbered more than 30,000. In the Boer War there were some 104 POWs in captivity. In World War II, 22,376 were captured in the Pacific and 8,591 in Europe. In the Korean War, some 30 Australian servicemen were interned by North Korean forces. Australian prisoners of war were subjected to conditions that none of us can even begin to imagine. They battled starvation, exhausting work and the brutality of their captors. All suffered and many died during captivity. The vast majority returned home and many still live with the scars and memories of their experiences. Abroad they sacrificed so much, yet they continue to contribute to our nation and its prosperity today.
To the prisoners of war in my electorate and across the country, this government will never forget your sacrifice, stories and courage. I am proud to be part of a government which is delivering on its budget promise to help support our veterans.
Since the Boer War in 1899, Australia has had a proud history of service, defending our freedom and what it means to be an Australian. Today we have more than 360,000 veterans and their families living in our society. It is imperative that we serve and look after them in return for how they have served and looked after our country and our heritage.
The Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011 gives special recognition to Australian prisoners of war. It will introduce an additional payment of $500 per fortnight, made payable from October of this year. Importantly, it will not affect their income for tax or social security purposes.
There are approximately 900 former prisoners of war alive in Australia today. My own father is one of them. He was a fighter pilot with the famous 3 Squadron, flew 60 sorties in a Kittyhawk, survived the battle of El Alamein and was then shot down in the last few weeks of the war in North Africa. He spent two months in a POW hospital in Italy and was then sent as a prisoner of war to the notorious Stalag Luft III, where he participated in the great escape. And contrary to the movie, there were no Americans, no baseball and no motorcycles; instead, there was just plain cold-blooded murder in defiance of the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, the views of recent generations about prisoners of war, in particular those who were on the European front, have been softened by television shows like Hogan's Heroesmaking light of the harsh and brutal conditions which prevailed.
From pilots in Turkey and soldiers in Germany to nurses in Indonesia, it is estimated that 34,000 Australians have been held captive during war time. Their experience is unique and heart-rending. Prisoners of war were almost always sick and hungry, either sweltering hot or freezing cold, put to unimaginably harsh work or left to be consumed by mindless boredom. They were constantly under the control of their captors. For young Australians who had come from 'a land of sweeping plains' to be detained behind barbed wire, having left home to fight in a war, it was a devastating fate and beyond imagination. It challenged their self-worth and, heart-breakingly so, often left them feeling embarrassed, despite their capture not being their own fault. This is why this amendment is so important.
Time in captivity leaves both physical and psychological scars on prisoners of war, scars that are difficult to fathom for those of us who have not experienced captivity. Former prisoners of war endured their captivity and recovery from that captivity all in the service of their country. This experience deserves not only our recognition and admiration, but our understanding. I believe this amendment goes some way to achieving that.
Warfare today is different from that of the 20th century. At a time when tragedy continues to bring the current commitment of our service men and women into sharp focus, it is important that we also recognise our veterans and what they experienced. Prisoners of war were captured during World War I, World War II and the Korean War. I would like to touch briefly on these three historical events to acknowledge the significance of this amendment.
In 1914, Australian service men and women did not really know what it was to be a prisoner of war. Those who had been briefly captured during the Boer War had for the most part escaped quickly and were not subject to the brutal conditions of those who were to follow them. Captured in the Middle East and Europe, these prisoners of war were the first to really learn the humiliation, ill-treatment and hardship of captivity. Four thousand Australians became prisoners of war during the Great War. They were not forgotten or left behind by their mates or their country and taught us all the true meaning of resilience and defiance.
I would also like to take this opportunity to mention two important figures within the prisoner of war experience of World War I. Elizabeth Chomley was an Australian woman living in London, who ran the Red Cross prisoner of war office supporting Australian prisoners of war in Europe. A recent War Memorial exhibition displayed hundreds of letters and cards of appreciation to Miss Chomley, who helped remind thousands of prisoners that they had not been forgotten. We can still learn from Miss Chomley today and remind ourselves that our deployed service men and women need our support—kind messages will never go astray.
The second figure I want to speak about today is Douglas Grant. Mr Grant was one of our first and, at that time, the only Aboriginal soldier, as during World War I Aboriginal people were not allowed to enlist in the army. I mention Mr Douglas as he is an example of determination and dedication. His love for his country saw him persevere until he had successfully enlisted in the Army and, upon serving his country, he endured the terrible conditions of captivity. He was appointed by his fellow prisoners to be in charge of relief parcels and was described as being given that role because of 'his honesty, his quick mind and because he was so aggressively Australian'. As a nation we are proud of figures like Mr Grant and, fast-forwarding to today, the amendment we are currently discussing acknowledges that pride.
In World War II, 8,000 Australians became prisoners of war in Europe alone. Most endured captivity for more than three continuous years. Over 22,000 servicemen and, for the first time, more than 40 female nurses were captured in the Pacific. It was those prisoners of war who worked on the notorious Burma-Thailand Railway—the haunting picture of emaciated young men, men who were once strong and robust soldiers. Of the prisoners of war captured in the Pacific, one in three died in captivity. Tragically, this included over 1,000 prisoners who were on unmarked war ships that were torpedoed by the Allies. Thirty Australians were captured during the Korean War and they endured much of the same brutal treatment as their forebears in the Pacific; however, they did so in the harsh conditions of a bitter Korean winter. Additionally, as this was a war fought over opposing ideologies, these prisoners of war were also subject to attacks on their minds, with attempts to brainwash these servicemen against the cause they served.
Simply mentioning these experiences does not do our prisoners of war, or their families, justice. Their time in captivity affected our prisoners-of-war veterans in different ways—from a positive experience of comradeship to the bitterness of questioning how it could have happened. Either way, the experience was harrowing and stays with those who suffered through captivity. This payment is a welcome recognition of that, and adds to the support payments made by the coalition to former Japanese prisoners of war, in 2001; former Korean prisoners of war, in 2003; and former German and Italian prisoners of war, in 2007. Our veterans have supported our country and we must support them.
With this in mind I must say that it was extremely disappointing to see $8 million in funding cut from grassroots veterans advocacy funding over the forward estimates. I fail to see how that is supporting our veterans. The ex-service community had no warning of this cut, and now must compete for a smaller pool of funding. This is in addition to both Labor and the Greens not supporting the coalition's commitment to military superannuation reform, specifically providing fair indexation to DFRDB and DFRB superannuants.
Whilst the payment to prisoners of war is a welcome addition to recognising our veterans, this government is simply not doing enough.
The Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011, which we have before us today, is legislation that I am sure every member of this parliament would support. We all support our veterans and we all acknowledge the enormous contribution they have made to our country.
In Shortland electorate we have a very large and strong veterans community. Its strength is epitomised by the fact that they all provide support for each other. There was camaraderie when they fought together in the wars and that camaraderie still exists today. As our veterans get older we still need to recognise the issues that are important to them.
The bill that we have before us today will have effect in a number of ways. The Veterans' Affairs 2011 budget measures will create a prisoners of war recognition supplement, clarify the original intention of the compensation-offsetting policy in relation to disability pension and rationalise temporary incapacity allowance and loss of earning allowance. This legislation will impact on Australian prisoners of war from the Second World War and Korea, whose numbers are in excess of 30,000. Over 22,000 Australians became prisoners of war of the Japanese in South-East Asia and, during the Korean War, 30 servicemen were interned by North Korean forces.
As part of the 2011-12 budget, the government announced that a POWR supplement of $500 will be made fortnightly to surviving former Australian prisoners of war. (Quorum formed)
Before my contribution was interrupted I was expressing my respect for the veterans not only in Shortland electorate but throughout Australia. I was acknowledging the enormous contribution that they have made to our nation. For the benefit of the House I would particularly like to acknowledge the ex-service community and the subbranches within Shortland electorate. There is the Belmont subbranch and the Pelican subbranch, which is a very strong subbranch with a large number of members. Many of them are World War II and Korean War veterans. There is the Swansea subbranch, which is also a very strong subbranch, a community with strong camaraderie where the ex-servicemen work together, stay together and maintain that common bond.
The Doyalson-Wyee subbranch is an enormous subbranch. That is on the Central Coast. Those members are very supportive of each other. It was only two weekends ago that they had the 54th anniversary of their subbranch, which was a fantastic event where all the ex-service community gathered. They were joined by other ex-service communities. There is also Catherine Hill Bay, which is just a tiny little hamlet but still has its own subbranch that operates out of the surf-lifesaving and bowling club in the area. Then there is the Toukley subbranch, which is outside Shortland electorate, but many residents of the Shortland electorate are members of that subbranch. That is one of the truly strong subbranches on the Central Coast. I must not forget the Adamstown subbranch, which is just outside Shortland electorate, in the electorate of the member for Newcastle. Many of the members there live in Shortland electorate and it provides support to the veterans of our community in Shortland. I really want to put on the record very strongly my support for those veterans and for the work that they do.
In relation to prisoners of war, I remember an occasion when I visited Toukley subbranch. When Toukley was in Shortland electorate, I used to visit there once a month and meet with people. They would come and tell me if they had an issue. On this particular day, an ex-serviceman who had been a prisoner of war came to talk to me about a problem he had. At the conclusion of that conversation he spent some time telling me about his experience as a prisoner of war. There were some fun things that they did to while away the hours, but there were some pretty horrendous things that happened. He told me that he still wakes at night in a cold sweat because he can remember what it was like. He broke down and cried, and this was many, many years after he had been a prisoner of war in Germany.
When you hear stories such as this and the stories that have been told by other members in parliament today, you can understand why the government has decided to implement the POWR supplement. It will be tax-free, exempt income for the purposes of the veterans entitlements and social security income test and will be indexed annually in line with the CPI. That will benefit those veterans who are entitled to it. Aged-care fees will not be affected by the POWR supplement, and that is an important aspect of this legislation. The supplement will apply to all former Australian prisoners of war of Japan and Europe from the Second World War, including civilian prisoners of war, and former POWs from the Korean War.
I recently attended a book launch in the Hunter for a book about the role that nurses have played in conflicts. It dealt with nurses from the Hunter. Reading about the experiences of many of those nurses and other nurses working overseas, tending to soldiers right there at the battlefront and being interned as prisoners of war, makes you realise that our involvement in conflict has many layers. It is really important that legislation that we put before the parliament recognises the fact that not only our service men and women were prisoners of war; there were many civilians. I find that a very important aspect of this legislation.
Prisoners of war known to the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be paid from 20 September. The first payment will be made on 6 October. This will only be made to prisoners of war, not to war widows or widowers, because they already have access to the ex-gratia payment. In addition to benefits available to other veterans, there have been many benefits provided to prisoners of war. They were recognised by the Howard government and have been recognised by this government. These benefits include the ex gratia payment of $25,000, the DVA payment of residential aged-care fees in both low- and high-care facilities, the DVA payment of fees for community aged-care packages which provide care similar to low-care residential facilities in a veterans' home, and the Extended Aged Care at Home and Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia packages, the automatic gold card and funeral benefits and the automatic granting of war widow pensions to the partner upon the death of a prisoner of war. All of these are very important aspects of what the government provides to prisoners of war. We recognise the fact that prisoners of war made an even greater contribution than some other people who were involved in war. To be interned in a foreign country in the worst kind of conditions adds another dimension to their service.
This legislation also amends the compensation offsetting provisions in the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The purpose of these proposed amendments is to clarify and affirm existing practices. No veteran payment is affected by them. We often hear the suggestion that legislation is not clear, and wherever there is uncertainty the government should clear it up. I think these amendments are important because they do give clarity. The other aspect of the amendments is the rationalisation of the temporary incapacity allowance, which improves the targeting of the allowance for veterans and members who lose wages during a period of short incapacity. The legislation before us is worthy of support. I know that members on both sides of the House will join together and support the legislation.
I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011. This bill seeks to implement three measures which affect veterans' entitlements: the provision of fortnightly payments of $500 to former prisoners of war, the clarification of arrangements for compensation offsetting with respect to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and, finally, the modernisation and rationalisation of the arrangements for the payment of loss-of-earnings allowances to eligible veterans.
Firstly, I will speak about payments to prisoners of war. The relevant schedule to the bill is entitled 'Prisoner of war recognition supplement'. I believe the word 'recognition' is particularly relevant to the veteran community and is significant to all Australians. I take this opportunity today to recognise the sacrifices made by veterans and to thank them for the sacrifices that they have made. There are approximately 900 former POWs in Australia, including 20 who reside on the Gold Coast. In 1975, repatriation regulations to provide health benefits for POWs were established. While serving our country these veterans were confined in camps, buildings, prisons or other restricted areas as a prisoner of the enemy. POWs have a unique place in our history and within the veterans' community.
The coalition has a strong record on providing assistance for Australia's ex-prisoners of war. I note, for example, the $25,000 tax-free, ex gratia payment from the Howard government which was made available in 2001 to all former POWs of the Japanese. The coalition extended these payments to other former POWs, with former Korean War POWs and former POWs of the Germans and Italians receiving similar payments in 2003 and 2007 respectively.
The coalition supports the continuing acknowledgement and appreciation of our former POWs. Under this bill, ex-POWs will receive a $500 payment each fortnight from the Australian government from 20 September 2011. Specifically, this payment will be made to former military personnel and civilians who were taken as POWs during World War II and the Korean War. The payment will be considered to be a non-taxable supplement. The proposed payment will not affect former POWs' present access to income support under either the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 or the Social Security Act, or to compensation payments under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. As I indicated before, there are approximately 900 eligible former POWs, and they will automatically receive the payment, with the first payments to take effect from 6 October 2011.
Schedule 2 of the bill relates to compensation offsetting. This schedule seeks to clarify the operation of compensation provisions under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Currently, under Australia's repatriation system, compensation is paid for incapacity, not for a specific injury. These amendments have come about in response to the ruling of the full Federal Court in the case of the Commonwealth of Australia v Smith in 2009. In essence, the court found that the facts of Mr Smith's case meant that the Repatriation Commission's determination to offset his compensation under each scheme, in line with the principle of compensation offsetting, was inappropriate. Therefore, the full Federal Court determined that Mr Smith's separate incapacities should be separately compensated because they were different injuries with different incapacities.
In response to this issue, schedule 2 substitutes the words 'the incapacity from that injury or disease or the death', contained in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, with the more precise phrase 'the same incapacity of the veteran from that or any other injury or disease or in respect of that death'. The amendments proposed by schedule 2 should be investigated by a Senate committee. I believe that referring the bill for investigation by a Senate committee will allow the ex-service community, the community affected, an opportunity to provide their input and to have a say into these proposed changes. It is hoped that through consultation with the ex-service community, additional interpretations and explanations of the decisions in Smith can be made.
Thirdly, I would like to speak briefly about schedule 3 of the bill. The changes proposed in schedule 3 will remove the temporary incapacity allowance. As an alternative, veterans will be entitled to seek access to the loss of earnings allowance. I will not speak in detail on this amendment, but I note that, although these two allowances both provide similar compensation, the loss of earnings allowance provides compensation to a broader group but is restricted to veterans who experience an actual loss.
This bill is of particular importance to the McPherson electorate, taking into consideration the large veteran community that we have on the Gold Coast, particularly on the southern Gold Coast, which is my electorate. In McPherson we have a local support group that is directly involved in assisting the veterans community and therefore has a vested interest in this bill. The Veterans Support Centre at Currumbin RSL has been providing high-quality advice and support to veterans in the McPherson electorate for some time now. The support service has been providing services to both members and ex-members of the defence forces and their dependants, assisting them in obtaining entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
The Veterans Support Centre staff work in accordance with the mission, role and objectives of the national RSL. Services include providing an initial point for welfare matters; assessment and advice in the preparation of primary claims; and applications for increased benefits under the various relevant acts. The organisation also assists with the preparation and presentation of cases for review to the Repatriation Commission under section 31 of the act. The Veterans Support Centre does not discriminate against those not affiliated with RSLs. Support services are made available to all entitled veterans, members and ex-members of the defence forces and their dependants, regardless of whether they hold an RSL membership. The Currumbin RSL's Veterans Support Centre, well located within the McPherson electorate, is the largest of its kind on the Gold Coast. During the first quarter of this year, the centre's staff processed 154 claims. This resulted in an increase in pension and allowances to over $198,000, translating to a projected increase of close to $365,000 for DVA allowances.
The sacrifices that veterans have made for our community are recognised and are reciprocated by the tireless efforts of staff and volunteers at the Veterans Support Centre at Currumbin. The people directly involved in assisting our veterans and Defence Force members and families deserve recognition of their contribution to the local veteran community. I take the opportunity today to acknowledge and thank the chair of the Veterans Support Centre, Joseph Gates, for his continued support and dedication to the veterans community. Joe was recently commended for his contribution to the support centre as a recipient of the McPherson community services award.
There are a number of welfare officers at the support centre, and they have responded to 105 general inquiries. The report for the first quarter has indicated a further 122 welfare referrals in hospitals, 116 in home visits and 119 consultations at aged-care facilities. In total, 357 field visits have been made to McPherson veterans in three months. I believe that the mobile service, in addition to the in-house support, is essential to our ageing community. On any day the support centre handles between 15 and 20 calls for welfare assistance, and it is presently supporting around 200 active clients. I should note that these calls are not quick calls; the support staff at the Veterans Support Centre spend a considerable amount of time talking to and working with each of the veterans to make sure that they fully understand the issues and are providing the highest level of support to them.
Demand at the Currumbin RSL veterans support services outnumbers that at many other support services on the Gold Coast. The inquiries are handled by 18 volunteer officers who donate their time to help. Over 3,400 veterans require assistance in the McPherson electorate alone. The centre has been set up to deal with a large capacity of inquiry. If the centre ceased to operate there would be a long waiting list of veterans requiring assistance with entitlement services.
Considerable expenses are involved in running the Veterans Support Centre. The Currumbin RSL Sub-Branch has donated $100,000 towards payroll and office expenses. In addition, a total of $37,531 has been obtained through grants from the Building Excellence in Support and Training program of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. These grants are provided through veterans' advocacy funding and are currently at risk of being cut by $8 million overall by the Gillard Labor government. If this happens the government will be putting a number of volunteer community services such as the Veterans Support Centre in crisis. The ex-services community was not prewarned about the decision to cut this funding and as a result has not been able to prepare for any alternatives. With a smaller pool of funding to rely on, members of the ex-service community will have to compete with each other to survive. A review of advocacy funding released only 12 months ago did not recommend a cut in funding. A cut in funding will result in a cut in services for our growing and ageing veteran community.
In conclusion, I remind the House that the coalition supports the continuing acknowledgement and appreciation of the sacrifices made by our veterans, and I also do so very personally. As I have discussed today, the proposed bill is of particular importance to the McPherson electorate. We have a vast and extensive veterans community within the electorate. Therefore, while the coalition does not oppose this legislation, it should be referred to a Senate committee for further investigation so that our veterans get the recognition they deserve.
I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011. I will make only a few comments, to ensure that other members from this side of the House are able to speak prior to question time today. I note the member for Dunkley is sitting at the table. We share a lot in common, both being former veterans' affairs ministers.
This bill will extend an ex gratia payment to ex-prisoners of war of $500 per fortnight. We in this House welcome that payment, and I am sure that Australians wherever they are would recognise that this is a payment that no-one could object to. This payment will be exempt from income tax for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. The bill will also clarify the longstanding compensation-offsetting arrangements that have been in place in the repatriation system since 1973. This follows a full Federal Court decision which highlighted the need to clarify the legislation. This does not vary the disability pension in any way.
This payment builds on a longstanding commitment from both sides of the House to do whatever we can whenever there is money available to support our veteran community. These amendments certainly build on the strong record of the coalition and the Labor Party in providing assistance to the ex-service community and ex-prisoners of war. On my watch as Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I was privileged to be able to ensure that ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese were granted a $25,000 tax-free ex gratia payment, and this was built on by the member for Dunkley while he was Minister for Veterans' Affairs, when it was extended to ex-prisoners of war from the Korean War and ex-prisoners of war of the Germans and Italians. So I think both sides of the House have a very credible record when it comes to supporting this very special group of Australians who we as a nation should never, ever forget.
As the generations go on, it is important that the new generations understand the reason why we have a veterans' entitlement to protect the interests of our veterans. We see members of our Defence Force serving in peacekeeping operations in East Timor, the Solomons, the Sinai—the list goes on—and in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have many defence personnel serving overseas who are prepared to put their lives at risk in the service of our nation and to do as the government requires of them, always protecting and supporting the values that are enshrined in our Constitution.
This legislation reminds me that next year will mark the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Milne Bay. It reminds me that it will be 70 years ago next February that Singapore fell. It reminds me that next year will mark 70 years since the horrific massacre of nurses on Bangka Island, which we learnt of only after the Second World War. It also reminds me that next year will mark the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. So in many ways next year is going to be a significant anniversary—not that they are not all significant, but I hope that the government will make sure that we do commemorate the 70th anniversary of such significant events.
The Battle of Milne Bay was the first major defeat of the Japanese. Corporal French of the 2nd/9th Battalion was awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously. Next year we should make sure that we focus on a major commemoration of this. We should also remember the fall of Singapore and the horrific massacre by the Japanese on Bangka island, where nurses were told just to march into the water of the ocean off Bangka island and were massacred from behind with machine guns. The sole survivor was Sister Vivian Bullwinkel, and what an inspiration she was. If it had not been for her miraculous survival of that massacre, the world and we in Australia would never have known of that horrific event. We should remember the bombing of Darwin and other events. But the Battle of Milne Bay was a most significant defeat of the Japanese, which in many ways was a turning point in the battle in the Pacific. We should also remember the 70th anniversary of Kokoda and all the battles across the great archipelago to our north. I hope that the minister, through the department, is able to focus on commemorative occasions next year.
I know that the department run a very, very good commemorative section. On my watch and on the current government's watch they have put on very significant commemorative pilgrimages back to the sites of great battles where there was great loss of life. Given that we are debating this bill to do with prisoners of war, I want to say that next year should be a time for significant commemorations—not just pilgrimages to those places across the great archipelago to our north but also commemorations across Australia as we lead up to those dates throughout 2012. We should also engage with the young generations at schools, through scholarships or essay competitions, making sure that our young generations, 70 years on, are still learning something of our military history—the record of Australians and their sacrifices.
I am using this bill to put this on the public record, but I hope that the minister and the government, through the department, which has a wonderful record when it comes to commemoration, look next year at commemorating the Battle of Milne Bay, the fall of Singapore, Kokoda, the bombing of Darwin, the massacre on Bangka island and the Thai-Burma Railway. There is so much there. These are horrific stories to tell but we should never, ever forget. It is important to bring these things to the consciousness of all Australians, particularly our young generations. Next year will be one of those times when we can have a focus on it. I know the government and the minister will be looking at the centenary of Gallipoli in 2015, several years away. I urge the minister, when they look at that, to make sure once again that there is a focus back here in Australia. Whilst Gallipoli is a touchstone for many young Australians for what it meant when we first went ashore—and I think that, at that moment, we as a young nation, so soon after Federation, lost our innocence forever—it is not only Gallipoli that we see as marking major occasions when Australians have been involved in making the world a better and hopefully a safer place. I think it is important that it is not just at Gallipoli but back here in Australia that we connect it to a younger generation particularly, because it is their legacy. The 100th anniversary year in 2015 is a touchstone, but let us make sure that we focus also back here in Australia, because not everyone can have the opportunity to go to Gallipoli, perhaps neither on Anzac Day 2015 nor in their lifetime. As we prepare for that centenary year we should keep our focus not only on Gallipoli but also very much here at home.
I commend this bill to the House, and I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to put on the public record a couple of other thoughts I have had to do with next year and the centenary in 2015 of the landing at Gallipoli.
With great pride, I rise to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011. I am very lucky in that I come from the town of Townsville. Townsville is Australia's garrison city, Australia's most significant armoured deployment and home of all three branches of the ADF. We take our veterans very, very seriously, and we have a significant veteran population in Townsville. We like to vary the way we look at things in Townsville. For example, there are the ways that the schools do Anzac Day, from the very formal processes of Townsville Grammar School's presentation on Anzac Day and their school history to those of schools like Heatley Secondary College and Southern Cross Catholic School, which take a more informal but nevertheless reverential look at the sacrifices people have made for us.
This bill in some ways goes to address that with a $500 fortnightly payment to prisoners of war in recognition of the hardship they experienced while serving. We now call it post-traumatic stress disorder; in those days, they used to call it shell shock. I was fortunate enough not to be born at the time of the Second World War, but my parents know and I have family members who know people who were prisoners of war. I was lucky to be born in the town of Quilpie. There were people on cattle properties out there who were Changi prisoners. They came home so emaciated, so skinny, so poor. My mother always told a story about one of those guys who used to lie in bed and his mother would sit there and say: 'Don't you die, Bill! Don't you die!' And he didn't. Nevertheless, there are scars to be carried. That is a very significant thing, and I think it is good that we recognise this, on top of the $25,000 bonus. We should never take for granted what people have given.
All veterans take their work very, very seriously, whether they dress in blue, white or green. We shift them around the country. We shift them around the world. Yes, we do give them trades, we do give them jobs that they will have for the rest of their lives, but every now and then we ask them to go overseas and get shot at or support people who are being shot at. Quite often you find that the people who have suffered the most are not the ones who were actually in the battle but the people who had to go and pick them up from there, the people who had to go and clean up. I was reminded of that with the death of the helicopter pilot in Afghanistan just recently. The American crew who had to go and blow up the helicopter had within days suffered significant losses themselves when they went over an IED. Those are the sorts of things where you have to become very fatalistic. I think the Australian Defence Force professional becomes very fatalistic in those things, and it is up to us as a society to recognise the scars that are incurred by our defence people.
As a nation, we have now embraced our Vietnam veterans, our Somalia veterans and our Rwanda veterans and soon will embrace our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. If you come to Townsville on Anzac Day, your heart just swells with pride. The street and the Strand are just chock-a-block full of people and families who go through there. Every school in Townsville is full of people from the Defence Force. We are very proud of our military history. But it is those smaller ceremonies that make you proud of your veterans' history. It is the smaller ceremonies for the Battle of the Coral Sea and the celebrations for the Vietnam veterans, not just the big ones of Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, that tell you just how important our veterans are.
You see the guys that come in and they still have a bit of a limp. We had an issue this year when two Second World War veterans wanted to march. People were a bit worried that they would not be able to make it, and they wanted them to go on a car. Like true Australian veterans, they just dug in their heels, thumbed their noses at authority and said, 'Bugger you, mate; we're walking.' So they led the march and did a great job. They led the whole town and got a standing ovation all the way through.
The first schedule of this bill provides a $500 fortnightly payment to prisoners of war in recognition of the hardship they experienced while serving, and that is just. These payments will not be taxable, which is also very, very important. They will not affect current income support payments, and they will be automatically received by all former Australian POWs. I think that is fair and just.
The second schedule clarifies the policy outlined in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 of offsetting compensation provided under multiple acts. The third schedule restructures temporary incapacity allowances offered to veterans in a more efficient manner.
When it comes to dealing with veterans, I think the government and we as an opposition must sit down and talk to our veterans because they know intimately how they will be affected. My office is very lucky in that I do have a very active and vocal veteran population and they do tell me what is going on, from the intractability of some sections of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the absolutely sublime work that the department does provide.
We have to learn that these men and women who have served in the Australian Defence Force, and are veterans, do have needs that cannot be fixed just with a whitewash brush. Sometimes we have to look at these things on an individual basis. When it comes to big changes like this, the more information we do put in front of our veterans the better off they will be. They do read it, they will tell you what is wrong with it and they will tell you what is right with it. If we as a parliament can listen to these people, we will end up a better place.
I just digress for one moment here to speak on the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefit Scheme. It is an issue that we took very seriously to the last election. It is something that both sides have made promises about and something that I have launched a petition on. I ask leave of the House to table a petition of some 12,620 signatures of people supporting fair indexation of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme.
I understand the petition has not yet been presented to the Standing Committee on Petitions. Leave is granted, subject to the approval of the Standing Committee on Petitions.
I thank the House. The 12,620 petitioners there were gathered in a very short space of time by a network of people who did it by email, telephone and fax. I received emails and telephone calls of support from all over the world—from Canada, Chile, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and Ireland. I got well-wishes from people who were on the road and were not able to download the document or email or fax it back to me. These people have done this in a very short period of time. They take their work very seriously. I ask that their wishes on this Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefit Scheme are taken very seriously.
Since 1972, when the Whitlam government brought it into consolidated revenue, it has only been indexed to the CPI when the pensions of everyone else have been indexed to the CPI or male average weekly earnings and the cost of living index. Slowly but surely the DFRDB recipients have fallen further and further behind.
Some people have said that this is an additional expense to the government. It is not because all it is doing is catching up where they have been missing out. So it should not be viewed as an expense but be viewed as just bringing them back onto line. They are not asking to be compensated for the nearly 40 years that they have been short-changed. They are just asking that from now on those people left on the DFRDB and associated pensions are brought together and spoken to as real people.
The previous member for Herbert, Mr Peter Lindsay, said his greatest failing and his greatest sorrow was that during his 14 years as the member he was never able to get this up. It is not just this government that has let our veterans down but a lot of parliaments all the way back, including this one. The issue goes back to the governments led by Mr Whitlam, Mr Fraser, Mr Hawke, Mr Keating and Mr Howard as well as the Rudd-Gillard governments.
I ask the parliament that we do take this very seriously when it does come through the House and that we do stand up and support our veterans and support the people who have served a minimum of 20 years in the Defence Force to qualify for this pension. I have said before in this House—and I will say it again—that we in this House, on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and every other day that we can get in front of our veterans, stand up proudly and let their bravery and service to the nation wash over us and reflect the glory. But when we get behind closed doors we do not back that up and support our DFRDB recipients when it comes to actually paying up the cash. That is what they find most troubling. I get on very well with just about everyone in the Defence Force community and all they ask is to be treated fairly. If they were asking for something more than someone else was getting, they would understand, but they do not ask for more than anyone else is getting. They are not asking to be treated differently or any less seriously than any other person in the community. All they are asking is that they be brought in line.
I do urge the government to send the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011 to a Senate committee and that they get it in front of veterans' organisations such as the Defence Force Welfare Association. I ask that they take their words very seriously. These people have a lot to offer. They know more about the act than we ever will because they are subject to it. I commend the bill to the House.
As a former member of the Australian Defence Force for 15 years, I welcome the opportunity to speak on matters to do with veterans and the treatment of veterans in the debate on the Veteran's Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011. I also thank and pay reference to my colleague the member for Herbert, as the member for Lavarack Barracks and the fabulous 3rd Brigade.
And Garbutt.
And Garbutt. We cannot let RAAF Garbutt—
And Ross Island
And Ross Island as well. A number of defence establishments in Far North Queensland, very well represented by the member for Herbert. I am not so blessed with defence establishments in my area, but I have a number of cadet units which I am very proud of, as are their local communities. I also thank my constituents such as Terry 'Mad Dog' Mulligan, who frequently gives me his views, and other veterans who give me their views on what needs to take place with veterans. I also echo the views of the member for Herbert and those of so many in this place that fair indexation for the superannuation benefits—DFRDB et cetera—is very important for our former members of defence. I take this opportunity to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011. The first schedule of the bill relates to the prisoner of war recognition supplement. The government has announced $500 payments per fortnight for some 900 former prisoners of war, the youngest of whom are in their 70s. I know that these measures are certainly welcomed by those who come under the guidelines for these changes, but it is right to say that this is not the first time that an Australian parliament has provided this form of recognition and gratitude to those who have done great service for our country and suffered greatly for it. In 2001 the previous coalition government made one-off ex gratia payments to those who had been prisoners of the Japanese. Payments of $25,000 were made that year to those veterans and it was certainly right to do so. I know that you were intimately involved in those arrangements, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott.
From what we know of World War Two, stories of horrendous treatment and the worst deprivations are synonymous with what happened at the hands of the Japanese imperial army. The Burma-Thailand railway and the Sandakan death march are well-known events in the history of the Second World War that remind us that some of the worst treatment of Australian prisoners of war occurred at the hands of the Japanese. With the fall of Singapore some 15,000 Australians were forced into captivity as a result of that surrender. There has been some debate since the fall of Singapore in 1942 as to whether it was right to surrender at that time or whether the Japanese might have come to the end of their resources. In any case, the facts are that the surrender did take place and 15,000 Australians were taken into captivity. That started a very long period of captivity for those Australians, many of whom died as a result. I would like to talk a little bit more about that.
It is not right to say that there were any good prisoner of war camps run by the Japanese in World War Two; there were no easy options. The reality for our prisoners of war was that their day-to-day survival was tenuous at best. Many died through starvation and disease. Apart from the starvation, disease and beatings, those who were caught trying to escape were in almost every case summarily executed. Day-to-day life on the Burma-Thailand railway, for instance, would see the prisoners suffering and dying from malaria, dysentery and cholera, along with vitamin deficiencies brought on by their very poor and in some cases virtually non-existent diet. The Japanese also imposed 24- to 33-hour shifts on our soldiers.
An interesting part of the building of the Burma-Thailand railway was that when the Japanese first forced our soldiers to work on the railway they had a quota per man, whether they were sick or in good health—although hardly anyone was in good health. They had to move 0.6 tonnes of earth per day per man. Because the Australians were hard workers they exceeded this amount fairly quickly, so the Japanese more than doubled the amount of earth that needed to be removed as part of the construction of the railway. So it was as much as two cubic metres per man that had to be shifted in the end. Of course, this was certainly no open farmland. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I understand that you have been there yourself. This was in the deepest of rainforests and jungles with uneven ground. It was very difficult going that was made even worse by starvation and a range of diseases, tropical sores and illnesses. So it was very hard stuff.
It is certainly clear that those who fought for their country and suffered such deprivation are the appropriate recipients of our gratitude and respect for the service that they provided. Those who put their lives on the line in the national interest are worthy of a special place in the heart of our grateful nation. As I said before, there were 14,972 Australians taken prisoner at the fall of Singapore. By the end, even though some 12,000 Australians had been transferred out of Singapore to work on the Burma-Thailand railway and elsewhere, more than 2,600 of our soldiers died as a result of the privations that they had to endure.
When the Japanese were trying to control our prisoners, they tried to get Australians to sign up to no-escape agreements at the prison camp at Changi on Singapore island. Of course, all the Australians refused to capitulate to the Japanese. That led to anyone who tried to escape being summarily executed. I have spoken about the lack of decent food, I have spoken about the diseases that our soldiers were afflicted with, and I have spoken about the executions, but there were also the beatings.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Many people in the electorate of Macquarie make a real difference to the lives of individuals and families and, indeed, are a gift to our local community. Awarded annually, the Rotary Inspirational Women Awards seek to recognise the work of incredible women who sacrifice and give of their time, skills and abilities, investing in and impacting positively the lives of others. One such person is Carolyn Byers, a true woman of substance. Carolyn is a woman who lives and breathes compassion.
In New South Wales, Rotary recognised eight very deserving recipients at its awards dinner earlier in the year. The awards were presented by the President of Rotary International, Ray Klinginsmith. The array of achievements of each woman is outstanding and deserving of recognition and applause. One of eight awardees from across New South Wales, Carolyn Byers was the recipient of a Rotary Inspirational Women Award. The award was in recognition of her hard work within the community, volunteering her time in support of numerous community organisations including LINCS Hawkesbury, which supports Hawkesbury families struggling with social isolation or a lack of support from family and friends, and the Rotary Club of Hawkesbury, which runs numerous youth camps, community barbecues and other fundraising activities. I congratulate Carolyn on the well-deserved recognition of her hard work for our community.
On Monday, 13 June, I had the pleasure of attending a barbecue to raise funds and awareness for the ACT Community Living Project. CLP is a not-for-profit community organisation seeking services for people with a disability, particularly those with a moderate to severe intellectual disability, many of whom have physical or health issues. The group also includes people with autism.
The event was held at Magnet Mart Gungahlin on a crisp Canberra winter's day. CLP had organised balloons and face painting for the kids, hot soup, coffee and sausage sandwiches. My four-year-old son, Sebastian, and I helped David and Kay behind the counter and then he sat and chuckled at me while I had my face painted with the CLP logo. I acknowledge CLP president, Esther Woodbury, and CLP coordinator, Allison McGregor, for their hard work in promoting CLP and pay tribute to CLP and the 350 Canberra families it supports for family members with an intellectual disability.
CLP recognises the need to provide people with an intellectual disability with a choice of accommodation, access to lifelong education, meaningful work or voluntary activities, quality health care and the chance to be socially included. I am pleased to support its work to raise funds for CLP and to raise awareness of the important issue of supporting people with an intellectual disability.
I have been informed that Dave Brockhoff is seriously ill in the Prince of Wales Hospital and on behalf of this House, and especially on my own behalf and that of Tony Abbott, I send to him our very best wishes. When it comes to modern footballers, the toughest of the tough, the strongest of the strong all stand on the shoulders of Dave Brockhoff. He is the son of a flour miller and he used to play rugby for Sydney University, New South Wales and the Wallabies. He played for the Wallabies in 1949 when they first won a Bledisloe Cup. It would be 30 years later that Brock would be the coach when the Wallabies again won the Bledisloe Cup. He has been made an honorary fellow of the University of Sydney, he was granted a Medal of the Order of Australia in 2006 and he is regarded by the Australian Rugby Union as a classic Wallaby statesman.
Brock is famous for his motivational speeches. In one his many speeches, he is credited with 'having loosened the hinges on a dressing room door so he could charge through it trying to inspire his troops before a game'. That was against Randwick on Anzac Day—and I note the soldiers present in the gallery. We salute Brock for his challenge ahead.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Caroline Robinson on being named the Rural Woman of the Year. The Rural Woman of the Year award recognises women who have made an exceptional contribution towards rural Australia, and Ms Robinson has certainly done this. Caroline hails from the Wheatbelt community of Woolocutty in my electorate of O'Connor and is the driving force behind the Wheatbelt Business Network. This excellent initiative is designed to promote local produce and regional tourism. It provides networking, training and education opportunities for Wheatbelt residents. Already, the Wheatbelt Business Network has the support of five local governments and I expect this will only grow over the next year as word spreads of its success. The network has provided essential support for regional businesses and communities who have been doing it tough through a very dry season.
Following the award ceremony, I had the opportunity to chat with Caroline, and I was very impressed with her plans to further develop the network with a buy-local campaign. Outside her involvement with the network, Caroline is a wheat and sheep farmer. She also runs a ballet class, teaching about 130 students across three local government areas. Caroline Robinson is a wonderful ambassador for rural women across Australia. I wish her the best in her efforts to promote regional Australia.
I rise today to appeal to the Gillard government to not let another manufacturing business in Australia close. Nigretta in Hamilton is a furniture-manufacturing business specialising in quality Australian hardwood bedroom furniture. It is operated by Vantage, a disability employment provider of 50 years, and it supports 17 FaHCSIA funded individuals with disabilities. The current operating climate for manufacturing furniture in Australia is grim. The market for high-quality Australian produced hardwood bedroom furniture has all but disappeared. This niche, value-adding disability support provider needs government assistance. I have written to the Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness and the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers asking for action on this issue. It would make no financial sense to let this business close. The government is meant to work in partnership with disability providers, not hang them out to dry at the 11th hour. This is a deplorable position. The government needs to act and it needs to act now. If Nigretta closes, what will happen to the 17 individuals who will lose their jobs? What disability employment provider will step in to replace Vantage as the service provider? We need answers from the government and we need them right here, right now.
Today, I pay tribute to the late Jim Murphy, a much loved man with a zest for life, who reminded all Canberrans 'to enjoy the good times'. Jim was a man who was a passionate about his Catholic faith, passionate about helping people, passionate about the Canberra community and passionate about his sport. He made an enormous contribution to the Canberra community through his work with local charities, particularly his tireless support of Open Family, a charity aimed at helping to improve the lives of homeless people. A successful businessman, Jim spent 30 years building his business from humble beginnings, distributing wine from a shed. As a result, he was a strong supporter of local business and spent five years as chairman of CanTrade, working to bring business to the ACT and region, as well as overseeing a project to create over 1,000 jobs for unemployed youth. He was also instrumental in promoting our local wine industry through his contacts across Australia and around the world. Jim was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2003 for his service to the business and community sectors and to the wine industry.
The largest cathedral in Canberra, St Christopher's in Manuka, was not big enough to hold the hundreds of mourners who turned up to farewell Jim. Canberrans of all backgrounds overflowed into the streets to pay tribute to Jim and the service concluded with his beloved Canberra Raiders forming a guard of honour as his casket was carried from the church. He is survived by his wife, Margaret, and sons, Damien and Adrien, who loved him dearly and will miss him. Vale, Jim Murphy, you will be sorely missed by the community you loved so much.
My electorate of Aston in outer eastern Melbourne is a beautiful electorate, made up of suburban family homes and leafy streets. It is the nature of the suburbs which makes it so attractive for families. But the nature of the community is under threat by medium- and sometimes even high-density housing that is getting approval across the Knox community. It is occurring in places like Boronia, Rowville, Knoxfield and other suburbs in my electorate. I do not believe that this is the right way to go. The Knox council is primarily responsible for this and I implore them to preserve the family nature of our suburbs and not to ruin Knox from being a place where families want to reside. But the federal government also has a role in ensuring that we have infrastructure which matches our population growth. I have expressed my concerns in this place before that our population has been growing too fast and our infrastructure has not been keeping up. I believe we need to slow down our population growth until there is infrastructure in place, otherwise we will have a larger economy but a poorer quality of living.
I take this opportunity to congratulate a local band, Penny and the Mystics, who are based in the Illawarra. Penny and the Mystics recently received a grant of $15,000 under the federal government's latest round of Contemporary Music Touring Program funding. Funding under this program ensures that regional Australia gets the chance to see live performances from some of our up and coming musicians. It is therefore great news that the talents of Penny and the Mystics will be able to use this grant to greatly expand their touring opportunities.
This band already tours extensively on the New South Wales South Coast and will now be able to take their music to new parts of regional Australia, including interstate to destinations like Hervey Bay in Queensland. Penny and the Mystics have had a great career to date, as well as well deserved acclaim from many music critics and they have a following of many dedicated fans in the Illawarra and beyond. I believe that it is important to foster the creative energies of our young folk and bring youth culture to regions that otherwise miss out. As somebody who enjoyed my fair share of live music in my youth, I am pleased to congratulate Penny and the Mystics on winning this grant and wish them well for their coming tour, and I encourage all members of this place to rush out and buy one of their CDs.
I wish to raise the issue of the need for a Medicare-eligible MRI facility for Mildura in my electorate. We have been lobbying for such a service for many years without success to date. I have written to the relevant federal minister many times, with the most recent letter sent on 8 April 2011 before the federal budget pleading for Mildura to receive Medicare-eligible MRI services as soon as possible. Surely it must be Mildura's turn. Our regional catchment for a Medicare-eligible MRI service incorporating Broken Hill, the Riverland in South Australia, Mildura and Swan Hill represents a population in excess of 100,000. It must be Mildura's turn.
Because of the lack of government attention on this matter, two businesses who need to be congratulated are in the process of establishing MRI machines in Mildura, costing many millions of dollars each without an assurance that they will qualify for a Medicare supplement. This will make it expensive for the people who urgently need access to magnetic resonance imaging, especially patients in hospital. I am calling on the government to honour the requests I have been constantly making by letter to finally give Mildura its Medicare funded MRI facility.
I rise in the House today to congratulate a constituent of my electorate of Bass, Mr Rohan Wilson, author of The Roving Party. Rohan was recently awarded the Australian/Vogel's Literary Award for an unpublished manuscript by a writer aged under 35. Mr Wilson, who was born and raised in Launceston, worked in what he called 'dead end' jobs in hospitality, writing stories on napkins, before moving to Japan in 2003 for a teaching job. He met his wife in Japan and they now have a six-year-old son. The Roving Party is about the genocidal persecution of Tasmania's Aborigines by the founder of Melbourne, John Batman. Rohan spent four years researching the novel. Cate Kennedy, one of the judges of Rohan's book, said:
I'm still talking about this story to people long after finishing it—the spark in it, especially accounts of the meetings between indigenous Tasmanians, has stayed with me ... it seems so startlingly distinct from every other manuscript in this batch.
On receiving his award, Rohan said, 'Seeing my work in print is a dream come true.'
I thank Birchalls book store in Launceston for bringing this great writer to my attention. I congratulate Rohan on receiving this prestigious award and I look forward to reading the book.
Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the measures the government is taking to assist those in the Hunter region and the mid-North Coast of New South Wales who have been hit by flooding and severe weather in recent days? Can she update the House on the situation?
I thank the Chief Government Whip, who represents the Hunter region in this parliament, for his question. As many members of parliament would know and as Australians around the nation have been seeing through the pictures on their TV screens and the reports in the newspapers, there are communities in the Hunter region and on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales that have been seriously affected by floods. Yesterday afternoon the New South Wales government declared natural disaster zones in the local government areas of Bellingen, Clarence Valley, Kempsey and the Upper Hunter. New South Wales authorities estimate that over 3,000 people are currently affected by evacuation orders. The townships of Manning Point, Harrington and Crowdy Head are isolated, and that isolation is expected to last three to four days, with a further 850 people affected. The SES have been doing the great work that they do when we face natural disasters. They have received almost 1,500 requests for assistance since Sunday. They have been very busy indeed, and we thank them for their work.
Sixteen schools and a number of roads are closed. I understand conditions are expected to worsen over the coming period. Of course, the federal government, working with the New South Wales government, through our emergency management personnel, who do such a great job, is closely monitoring the situation. The government is providing assistance to individuals, businesses and primary producers who have been affected by the severe weather. Together with state authorities, we are acting quickly to provide that assistance. Individuals and families whose homes and essential household items have been damaged or destroyed will be able to apply for personal hardship and distress grants to help them with emergency food and clothing and to restore housing. We want people to be able to get that assistance very quickly.
We are making available concessional interest rate loans of up to $130,000 for small businesses and primary producers and up to $25,000 for voluntary, non-profit organisations to ensure that they can get back up and running. Transport freight subsidies of up to 50 per cent will assist hard-hit primary producers with moving livestock and fodder. Funding will also be provided to restore and replace essential public assets such as roads, bridges and schools in affected areas. As always, we stand ready to provide further assistance should it be necessary.
The people in these regions in New South Wales are the most recent Australians to be hit by natural disaster during the course of this year. This is a year in which Australians around the nation and most particularly in Queensland have suffered the full force of nature's might. We have clear arrangements for working with state governments and local governments in such emergency situations, and those arrangements are working to provide emergency relief right now. My thanks go to all of the hardworking Australians, including volunteers, who are helping their fellow Australians during this time of need. I am sure we all well and truly wish for the weather to give us some respite and that the communities affected are back up on their feet as quickly as possible.
My question is to the Prime Minister and it follows up on my previous question. Can the Prime Minister confirm that never before in Australia's parliamentary history have both houses of this parliament condemned a government policy, and can she confirm that the government now intends to defy the express will of both houses of this parliament?
I did not bring every Australian history book with me to parliament but what I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that yes—and I would have assumed he also noted this—I can confirm that since the election last year the government have been functioning in a circumstance of minority government. In the circumstances where we function in the House of Representatives as a minority government, I view it as likely from time to time that motions will be carried by the House of Representatives expressing a view about issues. That is appropriate for parliamentarians to do and they will do it. But anybody who knows anything about the Westminster system and the way in which government works in this country also knows that it falls to executive government to make important policy choices and decisions on behalf of the nation—and I have.
I have made an important policy decision on behalf of the nation. That policy decision is that we should do everything we can to break the people smugglers' business model. We can best do that—indeed, we can truly only do that—by working for a regional solution with countries in our region. We are doing so. We did that through the Bali framework earlier this year. Now under the auspices of that framework we are in advanced negotiations with Malaysia about a transfer agreement which would send the hardest possible message we can to people smugglers and asylum seekers to not get on a boat. I am determined to send the toughest message we can that people should not get on boats. I do not want to see people smugglers profit. I do not want to see people risk their lives at sea.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: my question was not about the government's policy; it was about whether the government was going to defy the express will of this parliament. I ask the Prime Minister to be directly relevant to the question.
The Prime Minister is aware of her obligations under the standing orders.
I am determined that we will pursue the agreement with Malaysia. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am finding his sense of high dudgeon very interesting indeed. The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition could not come into this parliament with a motion to support his Nauru solution, because that motion would fail in this House of Representatives and would be very likely to fail in the Senate too. So I am presuming what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that no-one should take any further action to deal with people smuggling. If that is the proposition of the Leader of the Opposition—that no-one should take any further action to deal with people smuggling—I respectfully disagree. We will be taking the toughest possible further action to deal with people smuggling. I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to be stuck in a welter of inaction if that is where he would prefer to be.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister outline how the government's plan for a carbon price can help households and business transition to a clean energy future? How has this been received and what is the government's response?
I thank the member for Greenway for her question. The government plans to introduce a carbon price because it will cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy in the future. Importantly, it will do so at least cost to our economy, to businesses and to households. On this point, this morning the Prime Minister and I received letters from an international group, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. That group comprises 72 members with assets under management of about $8.8 trillion—
Opposition members interjecting—
something the coalition seems to believe to be trivial. The group advises its members on investment risks and opportunities with respect to climate change. In their correspondence, the group had this to say:
Evidence from leading economists including Sir Nicholas Stern and your own Professor Ross Garnaut, have clearly articulated the potential costs of inaction and the economic case for reducing emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. As whole of economy investors, this is evidence we must respond to.
The correspondence goes on to advocate that a market mechanism which prices carbon is the least cost way to cut pollution levels. Support for a market mechanism is consistent with the views of senior market economists, with leading business groups and with the findings, a week ago, of the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission said:
… the consistent finding from this study is that much lower-cost abatement could be achieved through broad, explicit carbon pricing approaches, irrespective of the policy settings in competitor economies.
That is a clear and unequivocal finding that a market mechanism is the cheapest, lowest cost and most efficient way for us to be reducing our pollution levels and driving investment in clean energy.
From a different part of the debate, today the chief executive officer of the Victorian Council of Social Services, Cath Smith, said:
It is time for Australia to adopt a price on carbon. It is clear that this is the most effective, efficient and fair option on the table to both tackle climate change and put the onus onto our biggest polluters and energy users to change their behaviour, while delivering compensation to people most at risk of disadvantage.
The conclusion from all of the commentary is very clear—that a carbon price is the fairest, the cheapest and the most effective way to cut our pollution at the least cost to our economy.
The issue of 'least cost to the economy' translates to 'least cost to households' and 'least cost across the economy to businesses'. A carbon price also generates revenue to support households as well as businesses. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he supports a subsidy-for-polluters policy paid for out of taxpayers' money. The Leader of the Opposition has also made it absolutely clear that he would remove any assistance provided by government to pensioners and to households—that is, he is going to claw back the pension increases, he is going to claw back increases in family assistance and he is going to claw back any other options to deliver that assistance—in the form of tax cuts, for example. You should recognise that households deserve the assistance the government is indicating it will provide and that you must not claw it back from them. (Time expired)
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the Philippine delegation to the third Philippines-Australia Ministerial Meeting. The delegation is led by the foreign minister and the trade minister of the Republic of the Philippines. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister and I refer to her previous answers. How can Australians trust this Prime Minister to conduct the affairs of state in a democratic manner when the Prime Minister has confirmed that this government is prepared to defy the will of both houses of this parliament?
I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she may want to refer to some of the books that describe our system of government. That will give her the answer to her question. Executive government takes policy decisions and we have. In respect of parliamentary consideration of matters involving asylum seeker and refugee policy, I think it is very important that, in answering the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question, we are very clear about the parliamentary processes to date. The opposition brought to the parliament a motion to endorse its Nauru solution. It was not carried by the parliament, and indeed the opposition needed to pair out the members for Pearce and McMillan because it was unable to get two of its own members to walk into the parliament and support its motion. So its motion failed and it was not supported by two members of the opposition. The members for Pearce and Macmillan did not want to support it and so they were the subject of pairs. The Nauru solution, or so-called solution, as put by the opposition—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order which goes to relevance: this was a very serious question; it did not contain any argument, debate or hyperbole. I ask you to ask the Prime Minister to answer the direct question about her defiance of the motion about Malaysia that was passed today, which had no bearing on—
The Prime Minister is aware of the obligation to be directly relevant to the standing order. The Prime Minister has the call.
I could not have been asked a broader question about democratic processes and I am answering that question. I am describing what happened with the Nauru motion because I am seriously going to ask the Leader of the Opposition: is he putting to this parliament and to the Australian people that if he were Prime Minister and his Nauru motion failed to get the support of this House, as it has, he would not proceed with his so-called Nauru solution? If that is the position of the Leader of the Opposition then I presume today he is saying to the Australian people that he has no policy and no plan on how to deal with people smuggling, because this House of parliament has rejected a motion containing his so-called Nauru solution. So now, arising out of today's questions in question time, we can clarify for the Australian people that the Leader of the Opposition proposes to do absolutely nothing about people smuggling.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will relate her material to the question.
I am determined, on the other hand, to send the strongest possible message to people smugglers and to asylum seekers not to get on boats. And we will continue to pursue that policy and that agreement with Malaysia, as I take it now that we are the only political party in this parliament with a positive plan to take further action against people smuggling.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—
That this House censure the Prime Minister for her confirmation today that she will defy the will of both Houses of Parliament that have condemned this Government’s Malaysia people swap.
Standing orders must be suspended today because that is the only way to ensure that the will of this parliament is secured. There is no more important issue currently before this parliament than ensuring that the parliament is sovereign.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have rarely seen such pettiness surrounding what goes on when there is movement in this chamber. I would have thought that people would wish to listen to their leader. I find this surprising and I am happy to try to do something about it. The Leader of the Opposition has the call, and I have to make a judgment whether standing around is distracting. I have the belief that it only becomes distracting when people react to it. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
This is a motion to suspend standing orders to censure this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has scurried from the chamber. Not only does this government not listen to the expressed will of the parliament; this Prime Minister will not even listen to debate in this parliament, and nothing could condemn the attitude of this Prime Minister more than the fact that she will not even sit in this parliament while questions of parliamentary sovereignty are debated. Shame on this Prime Minister!
Why is this Prime Minister running away from the parliament? I will tell you why: she is running away from the parliament because she has lost control of the parliament. There could be no more important matter for this House to debate right now than the utter shambles which is the government's policy on border protection, the utter shambles which is the government's Malaysian people-swap policy.
In the end, this motion is not about the policy of the government. This is about the sovereignty of the parliament. Mr Speaker, let me remind you what the House passed today. The House passed a resolution moved by the honourable member for Melbourne that (1) condemns the Gillard government's deal with Malaysia that would see 800 asylum seekers intercepted in Malaysian waters and sent to Malaysia, and (2) calls on the government to immediately abandon this proposal. That is what this parliament has done today. It has called on the government to immediately abandon this proposal. Whatever you think of the government's policy, the issue is the parliament has called on the government to abandon the policy. So this is about the sovereignty of the parliament and I ask this question, which ought to resonate right around this country: why is this Prime Minister so scared to listen to the parliament and the people of Australia?
The parliament and the people of Australia are sending a very clear message to this government and to this Prime Minister: this Malaysian people swap is just not on. It is just not on because it is cruel, it is costly and it will be ineffective. We know that members opposite are equally concerned about the government's policy on this matter. We know that members opposite have been raising this matter in caucus. We know that members opposite are very concerned that people will be sent from Australia to Malaysia, not to enjoy the standards of care and concern that they would get in an Australian processing centre but to be exposed to the norms of the Malaysian criminal justice system. And this parliament has stood up for Australian values, this parliament has stood up for Australian decency and this parliament has stood up for Australia taking proper responsibility for the people who come to these shores and now this weak, inept and soulless government is defying the will of this parliament. That is why standing orders should be suspended.
I say again that nothing could be more contemptible than the failure of this Prime Minister to sit in this parliament and listen to this debate. What is wrong with the Prime Minister of this country that she will not at least listen to debate? She may not like what is being said but, as the Prime Minister of this country, she really has a duty to listen to it. Why is the Prime Minister scared of debate? Why is the Prime Minister scared of the parliament?
This is a government which has lost control of the parliament. This is a government which has lost control of our borders. This is a government which has clearly lost its own soul—and don't members opposite know it! This is a government which is proposing to do to people who arrive on the shores of this country something that if even contemplated for a second by the Howard government would have been condemned up hill and down dale; every refugee advocate in this country would have been condemning this as the cruellest and the least humane thing that had ever been done in the history of this country. I have to say that, to their credit, some of those selfsame refugee advocates are now saying much the same thing about this government.
The problem with the Malaysian people swap is that the Malaysian government will control the people who are coming to their country, the Malaysian government is saying, quite understandably, 'We will control who comes to our country and the circumstances under which they will come.' That is what the Malaysian government is saying, and the Malaysian government is further saying, 'If they come to our country they will be treated in accordance with Malaysian standards of justice, no-one else's'—and we know what they are. I am not critical of the Malaysian government imposing its standards of justice on people in that country, but I am critical of this government for imposing on people who have come to this country the standards of justice of another country. This is why this Prime Minister is wrong and this is why the parliament has made the judgment that it made today—and this is why for defying the judgment the Prime Minister deserves to be condemned.
There is a better way. It is a way that this parliament could well consider but has not yet considered. The better way is a way which is more humane, which is more cost effective and which is certainly more proven; that is, to reopen the processing centre in Nauru. That is what this government should do. I have been to Nauru. I did not rely on someone else to assure me that this could be effectively done. I have seen where boat people will be accommodated—and well accommodated. I have seen where boat people's children will be educated—and well educated. I have seen the police headquarters which will deal with security issues involving boat people in Nauru. And I can tell you this, Mr Speaker: there are no rotans in Nauru and there are no whipping posts in Nauru. There is no need for boat people sent to Nauru to be tagged, as if tagging would somehow save them from cruel and inhumane treatment. So I say, first of all, shame on this government for a cruel and inhumane policy but, most of all, shame on this government for defying the will of this parliament. This parliament has expressed its view of the government's policy. Now I say, and I say it particularly to the member for Melbourne, it is time to punish this government for defying the will of the parliament.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion, Mr Speaker. I stand here with the coalition to defend the principles of parliamentary democracy. I stand here with the coalition to defend the sovereignty of this parliament. This parliament is a more powerful institution than this arrogant Prime Minister and this parliament will not be ignored by this arrogant Prime Minister. This parliament is an institution that is fundamental to our stability. It is fundamental to our prosperity. It cannot be ignored even by this arrogant Prime Minister.
I had thought I had seen it all from this government. I thought I had seen the depths which it was prepared to plumb. Yet it has proven me wrong: it can go lower. Not only does it trash its election promises, not only is it prepared to walk away from every philosophical base it has ever aspired to and not only is it prepared to abandon its convictions and abandon the people that voted for it; it is prepared to defy the will of this parliament as expressed by both houses of this parliament today. This is the height of arrogance and the height of disrespect to the Australian people. The Australian people elected 150 members to this House and they elected 76 senators to the other place, and a majority of those members and a majority of those senators decided today that this government's so-called Malaysian solution should be condemned, that this government should listen to the representatives elected by the Australian people and withdraw its inhumane, ill-conceived, illogical and fundamentally flawed Malaysian solution and find a better way. Yet this government has ignored it. This is the type of behaviour we see in Third World dictatorships. This is the kind of behaviour, overriding the majority of both houses of parliament, overriding the will of the parliament, overriding the views of the majority of the elected members to this place.
The character of the Prime Minister is now on full display to the Australian people. It is not an edifying sight. The arrogance and contempt for the democratic process of this nation are now on full display. Australia deserves better. Australia deserves much better than this Prime Minister, who must be censured for defying the will of the Australian people through this parliament. The nation deserves better than an arrogant Prime Minister who is willing to defy the will of the parliament in the same way that she defies the will of the Australian people. Let me take the House back to early 2010 when this Prime Minister told the Australian public that she would not challenge her leader for the leadership. She promised to be a loyal deputy, but did the member for Griffith find out she could not be trusted! She betrayed the member for Griffith, she betrayed her leader. And now she has betrayed the Australian people by her broken promise over the carbon tax. The Australian people remember how this arrogant Prime Minister looked down the barrel of a camera and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Yet she broke that promise and has now sought to introduce a carbon tax having promised not to.
There is nothing this Prime Minister can say that the Australian people can trust anymore. How can the Australian people trust the Prime Minister to operate this country in a democratic way, to put in place the state of the nation along democratic lines, when she is prepared to arrogantly toss aside a motion that has been passed by both houses of this parliament? How can the Australian people trust anything she says anymore? She has shown such arrogance for other nations in our region, the way she treated East Timor over the East Timor processing centre, the way she has treated Malaysia over this Malaysia solution, the way she has treated Papua New Guinea, ignoring the sovereign status of those countries. Now she is doing it to our own nation. This Prime Minister, the leader of this country, is now defying the sovereignty of this parliament and she must be censured for it. What is even more extraordinary is that this Prime Minister is not even in this chamber to answer this call. She is not even here to answer this motion. What arrogance, what contempt! This Prime Minister must be censured and she must be brought back to the House to answer to this House.
Mr Speaker—
Opposition members interjecting
Order! The Leader of the House, who is seeking the call, will be heard in silence.
I am indeed, Mr Speaker, and I am very pleased to speak in opposition to this motion, which is a motion to suspend the standing orders—
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek your guidance under standing orders whether there is a precedent for a person other than the Prime Minister to respond to a censure of the Prime Minister.
Clearly people do not listen to the motion that is before the House. This is for the suspension of standing orders to enable a motion that has been referred to in the point of order. The Leader of the House has the call and I would take any other point of order as being deliberately disruptive.
This is indeed a suspension of standing orders, the 12th this year. This is the 12th out of 28 question times that have been disrupted by those opposite. It is now up to 45 per cent and this is two out of three this week where we have had a suspension of standing orders moved. But those opposite show their contempt for the parliament in not even knowing what it is that they have moved before the chamber. The fact is that there are procedures in place in which you can move a censure. You stand up and you seek leave and you either get it or you do not. Then you move to a suspension. What those opposite have done is defy 111 years of history, as they have done in question time after question time this year on 12 separate occasions, when they have been the only opposition in history to have walked away from the opportunity of question time, the opportunity to hold the government to account.
This is indeed an extraordinary suspension that they have moved. They have moved a suspension on the basis of the resolution of the member for Melbourne that he moved in this chamber earlier today and that the coalition supported. I will say this about the member for Melbourne: I believe he was very sincere in his advocacy of that resolution. That is more than I can say for those opposite, who rant and rave about stopping the boats but do not have any real solutions to put forward. The position that this government is putting forward is about breaking the people-smuggling business. But what those opposite are worried about is not just that the people-smuggling business will be broken; it is that their cheap slogan business will be broken as well. They actually are not interested in solutions. That is why this is an absurd position they have put forward. There has been nothing positive carried by this chamber or by the Senate but simply opposition. They want to jump on board and say that that should be the basis for policy making on an issue which they say is vital for Australia.
There can be no greater example of how the Leader of the Opposition is all opposition and no leader—no greater example than that. There is no greater example than the walking vuvuzela out there once again saying, 'No, no, no, no, no!' even when his inconsistent, rank opportunism, which has no bounds whatsoever, attaches himself to the Greens asylum seeker position. I mean, for goodness sake! They have gone on for month after month, week after week, day after day, and they would have it that this parliament's position is the position of the member for Melbourne. I say with due respect to the member for Melbourne, I do not think even he would argue that he has the support of the entire parliament for his position on asylum seekers.
They cannot even follow a script. The Leader of the Opposition said that this parliament had not expressed a view on Nauru. He said that repeatedly. He consulted the Manager of Opposition Business, he consulted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on her position and he consulted the shadow minister. On 28 October, debate resumed on the motion by Mr Morrison that was moved on 18 October.
That was last year.
The member for Cook says it was last year. The Leader of the Opposition said it never happened. Let me read you the bit of it that was rejected by this parliament: 'The reopening of a third-country processing centre in Nauru for irregular maritime arrivals to Australia. That was rejected by the House of Representatives.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
And now the member for Cook maintains that it was good policy. It was defeated by this House but it was good policy. But the position that this government is advocating, with a real solution to break the people smugglers' model, they say is not relevant. The fact is that not only was it defeated, not only did members of the government oppose it, not only did members of the crossbenches oppose it, but members of their own party opposed it. The member for Pearce and the member for McMillan indicated very publicly and in the caucus room that they would not vote for this position. So they had to pair them out, and the Hansard of 28 October 2010 indicates that. I await the personal explanation from the member for Pearce saying that it is not true what I am saying. She will not do that because she has more integrity than the member for Cook, who is engaged in this cheap-jack opportunism that we see before the parliament here today.
The fact is that there are a number of issues which should be debated in this question time. There are a number of issues which should be able to be asked by all members of the parliament. We have the challenge of climate change. We have the reintroduction of a form of Work Choices by their New South Wales Liberal Party colleagues. We have ongoing issues in terms of job creation and the economy. We have a budget with major initiatives, including mental health reform, superannuation, infrastructure development, child care and family assistance. All of these issues could be asked about if question time had not ended prematurely as it has been yet again today, for the 12th time. The fact is that we are now up in the order of 120 questions lost because of the failure of those opposite to value question time—the failure of those opposite to regard parliamentary procedure with the respect that it deserves. So we are not going to be lectured by those opposite about resolutions of motions that are debated and voted upon in this House.
The extraordinary proposition is that a resolution of the Senate should be binding on the government. I well remember before they got control of the Senate and introduced Work Choices and went too far, which resulted in us sitting on the government benches, the Senate day after day, week after week, carried all sorts of resolutions, without any consequences whatsoever. No-one in the Howard government ever noticed what resolutions were being carried by the Senate. This suspension should be rejected because we should return the parliament to the processes and the orders which should take place. Question time has been ended today as a result of this, and that is simply because those opposite are not interested in holding the government to account.
The time allotted for the debate has concluded. The question before the House is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition for the suspension of standing and sessional orders.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
While the House is relatively quiet, I indicate to the House that we have in the gallery this afternoon a group of cadets and staff from the Officer Cadet School in New Zealand who are here in Australia to celebrate RMC Duntroon's centenary next week. On behalf of members, I extend them a warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I am also informed that they may be playing a game of rugby against the RMC Duntroon cadets. I do not think, on behalf of the House, I can wish them luck for that.
The House divided. [14:55]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
The requirements of standing order 47(c)(ii) for an absolute majority having not been satisfied, the motion was not carried.
further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
) ( ): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Kennedy moving immediately—
That this House urgently agrees to bring on the motion standing in the name of the Member for Kennedy to establish an immediate inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the Minister for Agriculture's decision to suspend the live cattle trade to Indonesia.
I thank my seconder, the honourable member for Denison.
At the present moment we are informed—I cannot say reliably because in this issue there has been no reliability whatsoever—that in the abattoirs there are still tens of thousands of cattle that are going to be subject to the same cruel method of execution, if you want to use that term, that has been used previously. If we continue to do nothing then what you saw on Four Corners will continue. We are getting assurances from the government of a general nature but I have been reliably—or, again, perhaps questionably—informed that not a single stun gun has gone from Australia to Indonesia. There is no way that this matter can be fixed up unless the stun guns are up there to do the job. The most elementary thing was to send the stun guns. That has not been done. Not one single knocking gun has gone to Indonesia, not one single abattoir has been inspected and licensed. What I am saying is: whatever badness that you saw there is continuing as we talk now.
We are acting conjointly. Our opinions do not entirely agree, but we are acting conjointly today on something that all of us in this parliament agree upon, which is that what we saw on the Four Corners program should not continue for another day. At this point of talking we need an inquiry, and not an inquiry run by the government. That is not going to happen. That by definition is not an inquiry. Nobody has been punished. The country stands to lose $350 million a year. Meat and Livestock Australia has been taking $5 for every sale of an ox in Australia, which I am reliably told amounts to $70 million to $100 million. They do not have a lot of jobs to do, but one of them is to ensure that this sort of thing does not take place. I have been advised reliably that they knew about this for nine years. They have known about this for nine years and done nothing, yet they have taken off the people of Australia, specifically the meat producers of Australia, $70 million to $100 million a year. No-one has been punished—someone has been punished actually; someone has been punished very severely. No-one at MLA has been punished. No-one in the government department has been punished. No-one in any of the organisations or instrumentalities associated with this has been punished. Not a single one of them has accepted responsibility. If you are the person responsible then you accept responsibility. I do not notice many of us in Australia doing that and it does not reflect well upon us. When something goes wrong the Japanese bosses say: 'It's my fault. I tender my resignation.' I have been caught in that situation myself on a number of occasions and have had to tender my resignation. It is not very nice. No-one has accepted responsibility. No-one has been punished. It is nobody's fault. I will tell you who has been punished: the cattlemen of Australia, our frontiersmen.
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
I would not be too hasty, you blokes on my right here, because you knew about it for six years and you did not do anything about it at all. So I would not be too hasty in shooting my mouth off.
If we are to honour a group of people in Australia, we should honour that group of people who live in the northern third of Australia west of the coastal ranges, our cattlemen. They are our frontiersmen. They do it very hard indeed. If you fall off a horse or you get sick, too bad for you. There is nobody there to fix you up. You just hope like hell it is not raining so you can get the flying doctor in if he is available. My daughter had a terrible accident some years ago and the flying doctor was not available for nearly 24 hours. A friend of mine fell off a horse and broke his leg, and the flying doctor was not available for 48 hours.
I might add that I estimate that a third of our cattlemen in northern Australia are of first Australian descent—Aboriginal Australian descent, if you like. These people have been there for all of this time. They have tried to do the right thing. They have done nothing wrong. They sell a beast to a live-meat exporter who sells it into a feedlot in Indonesia. They have absolutely no way of knowing what was going on. The people who first rang me up were in fact those people. They said they were quite horrified. I have been in the yards working and I have seen men knocked down for doing a hundredth of what I saw on the television the other night. If you work with cattle, you love your cattle and you look after them. If you do not, you will not be a successful cattleman. So they were the first people to be horrified.
A lot of us are brought up in an outfit called Christianity and we are told to love our neighbour. Our neighbour happens to be Indonesia and we are supposed to love them—maybe you do not like them, but you are supposed to love them. There are other people who do not believe in this Christian business. They believe that, when you get a hit, you return the hit and return it really hard. I do not know what attitude the people in Indonesia take, but either way we do not come out this looking good. Here is a country where 80 million people out of 240 million people are going to bed hungry at night. Are we going to cold-bloodedly deprive three million people of protein? If you say, 'Well they can get it from somewhere else,' I will tell you they cannot buy meat from somewhere else. People have said, 'Why don't we process it here in Australia?' I would be the first one here to go with that solution if we could. The problem for us is that it costs us almost $200 to send a beast down to the meatworks. We cannot afford to send it down there. If you say, 'Well build some meatworks up there,' because it only rains for three months of the year and we are not allowed to have any irrigation in northern Australia, we simply cannot keep meatworks open. We have constantly opened them and they have constantly closed again soon afterwards.
Some people say, 'If we were to process them in Australia, they could buy processed meat off us.' If we sell an ox that is processed into leather, meat and chicken feed or fertiliser, it costs about $7,000 or $8,000 to buy that off Australia. If we sell an ox to the Indonesians, they pay somewhere around $650 and they can turn that beast into those three extremely valuable products for probably under $1,000. They cannot afford to buy it from us processed, but they can afford to take the live beast and turn into these very valuable products.
As a young man of 17 or 18, I was handed a rifle and I had to hand three telephone numbers in because we were at war with a country north of us, which will remain unnamed. I was fighting to keep the oil supply line to Australia open. The cynics would say we were fighting for Royal Dutch Shell. If we are fighting a war now to protect our oil supply line—many people here have said that continuously, and you probably do have to fight wars to protect your oil supply line—think about what happens if someone cuts off your food supply line. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion moved by my friend the member for Kennedy. There is clearly an urgent need for this parliament to become engaged in the whole issue of live animal exports as a result of the crisis that has engulfed this country and this trade in the 2½ weeks since the remarkable Four Corners program that most of us have seen, with images that I do not think any of us could possibly forget. I am tabling a bill next week and I will be able to talk in much more detail then about this issue. It is a bill that seeks to end the live animal export trade by mid-2014.
On this issue the member for Kennedy and I disagree, but we do agree very strongly, and we care just as much, about all of the people who have been affected by the moratorium that is now in place. We care just as much as each other about the tens of thousands of beasts that are now in feedlots in Indonesia, that are not going to be covered by any new initiative or controls put in place by the Australian government or the tens of thousands of beasts that continue to be slaughtered—and hundreds if not thousands will be slaughtered tonight in exactly the same circumstances and conditions that we saw on the Four Corners show 2½ weeks ago. That is unacceptable. My friend the member for Kennedy and I agree equally about the welfare of the graziers, the truckers, the shipping lines, the feed producers and everyone else who has been seriously impacted by the moratorium that has been put in place.
This motion seeks to energise the Australian government's response to this crisis in our live animal export trade. It seeks to energise the government to act as quickly as it humanly can to put in place appropriate safeguards in Indonesia so that the trade can be resumed. Yes, I do see an end to this in a few years time, for a range of very important reasons—not just ethical but also for important economic reasons. The fact is that the live animal export trade is cannibalising Australia's processing trade. No less than the Meat Industry Council of Australia reports the thousands of jobs that have been lost and the abattoirs that have been closed.
I ask my colleagues in this place, even if you disagree with me strongly on the need to ultimately wind up the live animal export trade, to please see the sense of processing these beasts in Australia, reopening the abattoirs, establishing new abattoirs and employing Australians. It is in Australia's long-term economic interests that these beasts be processed onshore. If you do not see the ethical argument, at least see the economic argument.
The motion in front of us seeks to energise the government's response to the crisis. It seeks to put in place appropriate safeguards such as Australian inspectors on the ground in Indonesia to help with training, monitoring, to enhance animal tracking and to show how to use the stunning guns—in fact, to hand over the stunning guns. This motion importantly seeks to call to account Meat and Livestock Australia, which has betrayed all of us. It has betrayed no-one more than the industry itself and the graziers who will be raising these beasts. The graziers have been handing over $5 per head in the expectation that the MLA would spend a reasonable amount of that money to make sure that Australian conditions and safeguards were put in place. What has the MLA done in response? It has gorged on a marketing budget, it has gorged on travel around the region and it has let all of us down significantly.
There is now an urgent need for the MLA to be held to account, and this motion seeks to do that. There is an urgent need for the Australian government to become energised on this issue. There is an urgent need for the motion of my friend the member for Kennedy to be debated and voted on because who can forget those scenes on the Four Corners program only 2½ weeks ago?
I thank the member for Kennedy for his contribution, although I do wish to point out that we have a matter of public importance following immediately which deals with exactly the same subject. Technically speaking, a suspension of standing orders would be completely redundant in these circumstances. Obviously, the member for Kennedy has a passionate concern for the cattlemen in his region, as we all do. This is a very difficult and complicated issue and it is understandable that emotions are running high in response to the footage that we all saw on the Four Corners report, the footage that has given rise to a great deal of concern in the community. There are many sides to this argument as well, as we understand the impact that this issue has on our farmers and graziers not only in the Northern Territory but also in the member for Kennedy's backyard. I understand the passion with which he is trying to defend his industry. It is very important that we support our farmers, but it is also essential that we come up with a solution that gives certainty about how Australian animals are being treated all through the chain of supply and all through this process.
We know that these circumstances have caused great damage to the industry, but it has gone beyond just the exporters of live animals to Indonesia; it has also had ramifications and repercussions for the rest of the meat industry in this country. We have noticed that there has been a falling-off in purchases from butchers. This footage has certainly played havoc with the entire meat market. We do not have the luxury to mess around and come up with the wrong answer to this situation. We must very carefully plot a course through this situation and come up with parameters that will make sure that we do not see a repetition of this situation. If we were to rush to a solution now and create a short-term fix that then rebounded on us later with a fault in the system, where would that leave our industry, our market and our cattlemen? We cannot afford a repetition of this incident. We must ensure that we put in place a system that has certainty for the future of the industry and consumers. Of course, we had the contribution from the member for Wide Bay this morning who thinks we can come up with a short-term fix to this problem. He thinks that we can implement an identification system in a day. I note that when he had responsibility for this issue, it took him 21 months to implement that for this country. I also note that, following the member for Wide Bay's comments on radio this morning, Mr Rob Gillam, President of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, made nonsense of that claim that it could be done in a day. In his view, it would take many weeks just to put the identification system in place.
We have to recognise that we are dealing with another country—Indonesia—which needs capacity built to be able to deal with this situation and which needs technical solutions put in place to complement an identification system. And, of course, we have to work through that as a matter of diplomacy as well. That is something I know that the opposition do not seem to know much about when it comes to the relationship with Indonesia. We have rebuilt our relationship with Indonesia since this government came into office, and it is a relationship that certainly needed a lot of repair. I remember very well when I was an officer in the army and the Minister for Defence at the time, Mr Moore, claimed he was going to send troops across the border into West Timor, regardless of what Indonesian opinion was then. I remember the outrage that that caused in Indonesia. Over the years, we have seen some incredible damage done to our relationship with Indonesia through the opposition's ignorance and poor performance in diplomacy. So that aspect needs to be handled with care.
We have seen constructive engagement from the Indonesian authorities on this issue. They are as concerned as we are that their practices and processes are in accordance with their own welfare laws in this respect. Our engagement has been across the relevant portfolios. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have engaged with their counterparts and they have an understanding that something does need to be done. As I say, they will require technical assistance to put those procedures in place.
You've been telling us that, Mike, for nine years.
The member for Kennedy has rightly pointed out that an inquiry needs to happen. He also points out that nothing has happened in nine years. Of course, this government has only been in office since 2007. The member for Kennedy also pointed out that this issue goes back many, many years to the previous government, the Howard government, when this trade was also conducted. Twelve years was plenty of time for the government to go and have a look for themselves at what was going on in Indonesia. What did they do during that time? They did diddly-squat, not a thing.
In contrast to that, this government have been actively engaged in pursuing this issue. Well before it emerged on Four Corners, the minister was engaged in correspondence with the industry. On 30 May the government's veterinary services were engaged to examine the standards that were being applied in the treatment of our livestock. We are actively engaged in trying to deal with this situation. Of course, now, Mr Farmer has been appointed to conduct an inquiry on behalf of the government. Mr Farmer has had a lot of experience in dealing with Indonesia as a former ambassador. We can rely on him to the deal with this situation. He has a relationship with Indonesia. Mr Farmer will conduct an inquiry not only into this issue but into the breadth and depth of our entire live export industry, which is what is required right now. We need certainty across the board so that we can preserve the live export industry for this nation. It is so important for us. It is important for our revenue and important for our domestic agriculture industry.
There are those who want to shut this industry down and there are those who would like a permanent blanket prohibition. Those cries will continue to be made whenever there is evidence that this industry is not being conducted on a sound footing. Where images appear that allow people to make that kind of argument, this industry will suffer damage. It is important that we get this right across the live export industry and that is what Mr Farmer will do. We have not introduced a suspension into this industry mandatorily on a six-month basis; we have said we will get this industry back up and running and back exporting as soon as it is possible to do so, as soon as we have certainty.
It is not a case of just getting animals and going back into the abattoirs in Indonesia that we know meet the right standards; it is about making sure that our livestock are going to those abattoirs. You cannot just hope that they will go to those abattoirs; you need to have a tracking system that ensures that. That will deliver certainty for our growers who have inundated us with calls concerned about how their animals are being treated. They do not want this industry started up again unless they can be satisfied that their animals will be treated in a proper manner. Their concern has been directed at the way in which the Meat and Livestock Association have dealt with this issue, and the funds that have gone their way which, of course, have also received matching funding from the Commonwealth. MLA have dropped the ball. There is no question about that. And that is why the minister is demanding the MLA support farmers in this time of need. They will be required to do that. This government will make sure that they do that because we have the future of our farmers at heart. We are determined to look after them and preserve this industry. But we must have a technical system that will allow us to completely track our animals through the system so that we can be certain that they are going to the abattoirs that can deal with these animals correctly. If we do it otherwise then this industry will collapse.
We cannot afford a second instance of this kind. That is the negligence that is being demonstrated by the members on the other side, particularly the member for Wide Bay, who ought to know better. He claims he knows the primary industry and says he can get this industry going in a day. What an absurd proposition. No member of this industry would back up that claim. No-one who knows what they are talking about could in their right mind assert that you could get this going in a day. No-one who has had any contact with the cattle industry could assert that that was the case. He has been exposed as an impostor.
Order! The time allotted for the debate has concluded. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Kennedy for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:34]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
In division—
I remind members that the use of phones for voice messages in the chamber is very disorderly. The use of phones as cameras is also considered disorderly. I have adopted the attitude that in the first instance I would give people a chance, and I have usually had the cooperation of whips to ensure that that happens. Of course the unwhipped, those on the crossbenches, are a different challenge. I would hope that they recognise that they need to be very careful about the use of their mobile phones certainly if they wish to vote on motions they have moved.
The requirements of standing order 47(c)(ii) for an absolute majority having not been satisfied, the motion was not carried.
Mr Speaker, my question relates to the Register of Members' Interests, which is established by resolution of the House. There are reports in the media today regarding the member for Gellibrand and, in particular, I refer to an article on page 3 of today's Age newspaper indicating that the member has additional matters of pecuniary interest that do not appear to be listed on the Register of Members' Interests.
Could you, Mr Speaker, investigate whether it is a requirement that these matters be listed on the register and, if so, why they have not been listed to date?
These matters are best dealt with by the committee that now covers the Register of Members' Interests and I will refer the matter raised with me to that committee for its consideration.
I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 48 of 2010 2011 entitled Monitoring and compliance arrangements supporting quality of care in residential aged care homes.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I have received a letter from the Hon. Leader of the Nationals proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to competently administer Australia's live cattle export industry.
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 pictures of mistreatment and cruel abuse of Australian cattle in Indonesia shocked us all. The humane slaughter of cattle and other livestock to feed humanity is something that we know about and expect in this country. Australian farmers take immense pride in breeding and raising healthy and well-cared for animals, in line with the highest animal welfare standards in the world. So the footage that was aired on Four Corners was abhorrent to every Australian, especially every Australian farmer. I thought it was well summed up by Northern Territory cattle producers Chris and Murray Muldoon, at their Midway Station, when Mrs Muldoon said:
I was absolutely horrified. I made myself watch it, but I couldn't stop crying …
We had no idea things were that bad. I think it's a small proportion of the Indonesian industry, but that's no excuse, it's not acceptable.
Let me say that my own reaction was very similar. Senator Ludwig, the Australian Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, had an immediate response. His response was to promptly prevent Australian cattle being slaughtered in such appalling circumstances by slapping bans on unsatisfactory Indonesian facilities. That was absolutely the right decision. Once more, the minister made the decision promptly; he acted decisively.
But that is not the government's way. We all know that the decision-making process of this government is always burdened with incompetence, mismanagement and bungling. Indeed, that has been the trademark of the way in which this government has functioned. Every decision-making process it undertakes is a litany of disasters. It governs by committees, reviews and inquiries. But this minister had actually dared to be decisive and make a decision on the spot. Once more, he got it right, but that was unacceptable to certain nervous Nellies on the government back benches. It was too much for them to bear to have a minister actually make a decision and, once more, for that decision to be the right one. So, apparently, they got in the ear of the Prime Minister, whose knees got weaker and weaker. She contacted the minister to tell him that he had to reverse his decision. They humiliated their own minister, who had done the right thing.
The Prime Minister told him to back off and to implement immediately a total ban on all exports of Australian live animals to Indonesia. This ban covered not just the abattoirs that had been identified as having bad practice. Indeed, a list was prepared by the RSPCA and others, upon which the minister had first acted. There was no room for any abattoir that was not covered by that list or indeed subsequently identified as being one of poor practice to be separate from those who were actually doing the right thing. The point that seems to have been lost in the debate at that time, but which is very important in this debate, is that a number of abattoirs in Indonesia have world's best practice. They are leaders in good practice. They have slaughtering and processing facilities at least equivalent to what we have in this country—higher standards than are required by the OIE, the world animal health organisation. But the government announced a ban, potentially for six months, on the good abattoirs as well as the bad ones. Those doing the right thing have been penalised along with those who are doing the wrong thing. Those who spent money on putting in place world's best practice are being denied an opportunity to remain in business.
Clearly it was important to make an immediate call to ban those abattoirs with unsatisfactory practices, but the subsequent ham-fisted decision did not take into account the fact that there are many facilities—or at least a number of facilities, with others in the process of being upgraded—where the trade could have reasonably remained in operation. Indeed, some of these facilities could have stood as an example to other places. One of the worst things about this decision to ban everything was that it ended the incentives for Indonesian abattoirs to do the right thing. Why should you spend money? Why should you incur extra costs if you are going to be treated exactly the same as abattoirs that are not doing the right thing?
Earlier in the debate that we have just had, the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was critical of me for having suggested that we could get the trade back up in operation very quickly. Let me give you a very specific example where the trade could recommence within 24 hours without any risk that Australian animals would end up in an unsatisfactory abattoir. Let me tell you about the 1,937 cattle currently being held in an AQIS certified holding yard in Port Hedland. They are all NLIS tagged. These are Australian cattle, owned by an Australian company. They are ready to be transported on an Australian owned and operated livestock carrier with full AMSA accreditation. They are to be delivered to an Australian owned and operated feedlot that has a full set of quality assurance procedures which are independently audited by an international company. The cattle are to be sent there for 80 to 110 days, then they are to be slaughtered in an Australian owned and operated abattoir and processing facility. There are many Australian staff in this facility. It has HACCP and ISO 9001 accreditation.
After the cattle are slaughtered, the beef will be boxed and distributed by a company half owned by the same Australian company. It is a closed loop. What is the reason for banning this shipment from departing Australia? Was it this shipment that was the catalyst for the minister's decision when he was overruled by the Prime Minister? They could have sent Australian animals on Australian ships to an Australian abattoir to be processed by Australians and distributed through Indonesia by Australians. Why cannot that trade be allowed to recommence immediately? In addition to everything else, it would provide an example and a lead to others. If you wanted to, you could put inspectors in to make sure there is nothing lost along the way and that the tags that are already on these animals are regularly read. You could put all of those kinds of conditions in place—and this shipment could be on the water within 24 hours. The reality is that the government's ham-fisted approach, turning good policy response into bad policy response, has sent shudders right through the industry.
The Ramadan festival is nigh—the time when the demand for livestock in Indonesia peaks. Indonesia cannot stand by and allow the loss of the meat for this festival. I am told that Indonesia is already inquiring about sourcing stock from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and even India. None of those countries will be as demanding as Australia when it comes to the treatment of the animals that go to Indonesia. They are not investing any money in improving animal welfare standards in the marketplace. They do not have the disease-free status of the herds we have in Australia, so imports of those cattle to Indonesia will bring foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases close to our borders. The abattoirs are not going to stay idle because there are no Australian cattle. The cattle will come from other places where standards and concerns are not as high.
In addition to the government's ill-considered approach to delivering the best possible animal welfare outcomes in Indonesia—and, for that matter, in Australia—the government made this decision without any plan to deal with the immediate implications of the decision. They gave no thought to the consequences of what they had done. There were 13,000 head or thereabouts in quarantine, ready for departure. There were 150,000 head in the train and 250,000 either about to be mustered or in various stages of the process of assembling for the trade. The jobs of hundreds were at stake—stockmen, truckies, helicopter pilots, vets, food suppliers, agents, wharf workers, seamen and shopkeepers. Whole towns have been put at risk because of this ill-thought-out decision by a government that is simply unable to take a positive direction.
Instead the minister announces a repeat of the Labor way of making decisions—a whole stack of reviews. They appoint Mr Farmer, but he will take six months to consider all of these sorts of issues. There will be no industry left in six months time. The dry season will have passed, these cattle will have to have been dispersed in some way or another and the industry will not be able to recover again for the next season, whenever that might happen. Action needs to be taken urgently. It could be done now if the government had the will and if they were of a mind to do it.
Let us look at some of the practical implications of what has happened. This is a $320 million industry—47 per cent of our total live cattle exports. In reality, however, it is a billion dollar industry because there are so many other industries that are attached to it. There has been an immediate drop in the cattle market across Australia and meat in Australian stores has devalued. A Western Australian helicopter musterer, Colin Lauritsen, said he would just have to find something else to do for a living. His heli-mustering business in the Gascoyne is grounded. Shares in Australia's largest cattle producer, AACO, were placed in a trading hold as the company assesses the impact of the government's decision. The General Manager of the Milne AgriGroup, which supplies cattle feed, said that he will not be supplying feed to those markets and the company will have to lay off shifts of workers due to the drop in sales. South Australian feed producer JT Johnson has 500 tonnes of feed sitting in Darwin. The company director Robbie Johnson said that he will be forced to let employees go. Executive Director of the Australian Livestock Transporters Association, Philip Halton, says the impact on truck companies will be severe. They are concerned also about the state of the domestic market. The Broome Port Authority says it is struggling to make ends meet after losing two of its most important industries. It says that if the export ban is not lifted soon, the port will struggle to remain viable. Perhaps ABC's Chris Uhlmann, in his report on The Drum, made some of the most important comments:
There are 82 Indigenous cattle properties in northern Australia with strong links to the live export trade—54 in the Territory, 22 in the Kimberley and Pilbara and six in far north Queensland. These directly support 700 real Indigenous jobs—
they are so rare, as we know—
and it's estimated they indirectly support a further 17,000 people in station communities. And that's not counting the Indigenous employees working for non-Indigenous companies. All up the cattle industry that trades with Indonesia employs 11,000 people.
Kirsty Forshaw at Nita Downs draws attention to the problem with cattle welfare, saying, 'Cows are already pregnant and there will not be enough food for all of them. It is a no-brainer. It is not one or two or even 20 that we are talking about; it is thousands and thousands of cattle that are going to suffer and die.' That is not a good outcome. That is not a good outcome for the people of Northern Australia and it is particularly not a good outcome for animal welfare.
I know that considerable effort will need to be undertaken over a period of time to get the whole of the Indonesian industry to a stage which we regard as satisfactory. The industry needs to play a key role in continuing to raise standards in Indonesia. The government should use some of the foreign aid that it gives to Indonesia to invest in these abattoirs and to improve animal welfare and animal welfare practices. If we care about Australian cattle, don't we also care about Indonesian cattle and Brazilian cattle? Don't we want good animal welfare outcomes for all animals? That means improving the whole chain, not just for Australian cattle but for all animals. I know that this will take some time, but what the minister can do and can do immediately is open up the trade for those who are doing the right thing, those who can guarantee the security of their supply chain and guarantee there will be no leakage to abattoirs of unsatisfactory standards and, as a result, help to encourage investment in best practice right across the country.
Indonesia has been a good friend of Australia and this has been a good market for us. The government has bungled yet another issue. The minister had made the right decision. I call on members of the government to let him alone and let him get on with implementing the good decision that he made, which will deliver the best possible outcome not just for the Australian cattle industry but particularly for animal welfare in Indonesia.
It is a shame that we have had to prolong the embarrassment of the member for Wide Bay on this issue of live animal exports after his statements on Radio National today. To reiterate, this issue has a long generation going back the many years of the Howard government's time in office—the full 12 years in fact. The relationship and arrangements that related to the MLA began with John Anderson's activities back in 1997. So this has a long history. But, once again, this is another case of the coalition being asleep at the wheel as they were on so many issues during those Rip Van Winkle years.
We should systematically respond in this matter of public importance by talking about what the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has done and what is at stake, what is involved and how technically difficult this issue is. We should highlight that the minister initiated action on this matter back in January, well before the Four Corners material was aired on 30 May. He wrote to the industry asking them to address the issue of better animal welfare and then followed through by working with the industry in follow-on contact. The essential part of this was that we were seeking transparency and trying to work through the lack of verification across the system. In my earlier comments I referred to some of the subsequent action that has been taken. I emphasise the action taken by the Australian Chief Veterinarian Officer on 31 May after the program was aired, but the letter that the minister wrote was way back in January.
The minister acted aggressively after a full airing of that program. He only saw the footage on the day it was made available prior to programming. He responded by asking for orders to be prepared to enforce the complete suspension of live animal exports. He directed DAFF to implement a moratorium on the installation of any new Mark 1 boxes and he also instructed the Australian Chief Veterinarian Officer to coordinate an independent scientific assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of both the Mark 1 and Mark 4 restraint boxes.
On 8 June, the minister suspended the export of live cattle to Indonesia and made it very clear that that would remain in effect until there was a verifiable and transparent supply chain giving us assurance up to and including the point of slaughter for every consignment that leaves Australia. This was followed on 13 June by the appointment of Bill Farmer to conduct the review that I referred to. The immediate investigation that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is being ordered to do followed the picking up of that footage and the evidence associated with it—looking into it and determining what it represented and what abattoirs it was portraying. The department is working on that aspect as well as a moratorium on the installation of any new Mark 1 restraint boxes with Commonwealth funding. The DAFF officials have already arrived in Indonesia. They will be joined this week by an independent representative of the Australian Veterinary Association, and I stress that it is an independent representative. They will be conducting a review of the processing facilities that receive Australian cattle in Indonesia.
As I have mentioned, the Indonesian government shares our concern that some animals are not being slaughtered in accordance with Indonesia's own animal welfare laws. Certainly both governments have acknowledged that this is not an issue that threatens the relationship but that it is an issue that we both need to get settled. The trade minister, Dr Mari Pangestu, has stressed in her public comments that Australia's action represented a temporary suspension and that Indonesia was keen to improve practices. Also, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has recognised the importance of the issue and he has asked his ministers, the ministers for agriculture and health, to examine and manage abattoirs in Indonesia in accordance with health, religious and animal welfare standards. So we are seeing a very genuine engagement from the Indonesian government, and I thank them on behalf of the government for their actions in this respect. I do want to highlight that they are being serious in this engagement. They understand the implications, for themselves as well as for our industry, associated with this issue.
It is important to stress that this order is in place for six months only as a maximum. We will ensure that the suspension only applies for as long as is absolutely necessary to guarantee supply chain assurance. I stress that it is very important that we have supply chain assurance, because while the abattoirs are a key link in the supply chain they are not the only part. What is important is to be able to ascertain that animals are being handled well throughout the processes and that the exporters have certainty about where the animals they export are being slaughtered. That will involve establishing technical measures in Indonesia to be able to provide the full range of support that is required through the National Livestock Identification System. Otherwise there will be no point in us proceeding with the tagging of these animals unless that system is in place at the other end to assist us in tracking those animals right through the chain.
The concern that has been expressed in relation to the animals that have been held up, as a result of this suspension, is a legitimate concern and I recognise that people would be concerned about what is happening with those animals. I can assure the House and the community that AQIS has inspected all cattle currently in AQIS facilities onshore and they are reported to be in good condition, so I think we can rest assured in that respect.
Of course, there is an issue here about what is happening for farmers, and that is of deep concern to all of us. I think we should genuinely recognise that there are many members on both sides of this chamber who are very much concerned about the situation of our farmers and it is very important to note—and to emphasise and stress again—that the minister is now taking direct action and exercising his powers to direct the MLA to use some of its very substantial reserves to manage the immediate domestic impact of the suspension of this trade. We all know how integral the MLA has been to this situation. The MLA, as its members have been very loud and long in stating, has been funded through the contributions by these farmers. Their expectations were that the MLA were providing certainty about the welfare treatment of these animals. We should note, when I refer to the Howard government's stewardship and time spent on this issue when they could have done something to put us in a better position in this respect, that they had experience of livestock issues along these lines and banned the export of live sheep to Egypt but that was over a much longer period than simply six months. It was a very long period indeed. Very extensive and detailed measures were put in place to make sure that there was an international-standard abattoir to receive our animals, and that was over a very long period of time.
I was in Iraq at the time that the Howard government was attempting to offload sheep with scabby mouth that were floating around for quite some time. I did manage to convince the administrator of the CPA to actually take these sheep but unfortunately the port facilities were not up to taking them. Certainly this presented another difficult problem for us in the live meat trade. So the Howard government was no stranger to this but obviously did not go through the root and branch exercise that we are now engaged in, to make sure that we as a country and our farmers are never put in this situation again. We need to put this industry on a sure footing, or at least a sure hoof. So the industry body should support the efforts of the government and get involved in supporting our farmers. If they will not do it voluntarily they will be made to do it, because it is right and proper that they do so.
In relation to Mr Farmer's independent review, as I mentioned earlier, it will investigate all live animal trade and it will review and examine the whole live animal export supply chain for all markets that receive Australian livestock. He was appointed, as the minister indicated, on 13 June and he will be asked to provide an interim report to the government by 29 July and a final report by 31 August, so there will be in no delay, no dallying, in relation to going through this process.
It is important that we need to be able to track systems all the way through to approved abattoirs and make sure that it is backed up by an accountability and verification regime. So I think we can very clearly see that the government has been rigorous, has been systematic and has been determined and methodical in relation to making sure we are never put in this situation again. It is representative and indicative of the measures that this government has been taking to reinforce our farmers in this country, measures that have been long neglected by the coalition, and by the time this government is done it will be well demonstrated that this government was the best friend farmers in this country ever had. There have been many examples of what we are doing. It was this government that implemented the drought reform analysis. Everybody understood the old exceptional circumstances regime was a blunt instrument that was not serving our farmers properly so it was this government that instituted the review into the drought policy. We have committed another $44.1 million towards that process in this year's budget. It is a process that has been well accepted by the farmers, who understand we need to get it to a better place, we need to get into risk management rather than consequence management and we need to enable our farmers to deal with the peaks and troughs of the challenges they face from drought from climate change. That is where we are going with our drought reform policy. It is something this government instituted. We also have the Rural Financial Counselling Service program being extended, and I know that has been well received by men and women in the bush. We have committed $464 million for a smarter approach to the management of biosecurity right across the system. I know from my own family and from farmers in my region that biosecurity and invasive species are critical issues for them, issues that were neglected by the previous government. And we are introducing the first-ever national food plan, which will finally make sure we get the balance right of preserving our arable land and meeting the food security challenges of the future, making sure at the same time that we enable our farmers to be more productive and efficient in that process.
It has been a great day for farmers today in the passing of the Carbon Farming Initiative bills through this House. I must stress that this is a set of legislation, a set of tools, that the coalition opposed. How could they possibly be in favour of farmers and oppose the Carbon Farming Initiative, an initiative that will no doubt be regarded in the future as one of the key turning points in enabling our farmers to obtain productivity at the same time as diversifying their income while contributing to the climate change effort. It was opposed by the coalition. Why on earth would they do that? It defies belief. And it shows clearly that they are always prepared to place politics above the interests of the people we are supposed to be serving in this House. It is a great shame and discredit to them. The fact that it is an important piece of legislation for our farmers was well and truly illustrated by the fact that the Independents in this House backed that legislation, including the very wise and knowledgeable words that we heard from the member for New England, who is a farmer, who understands the benefits of this legislation. There is also the $8.8 million that we have put forward over four years to assist the implementation of reforms for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.
Most importantly of all, as I mentioned, our farmers are concerned about invasive species, and it was the Howard government that was going to trash the weeds CRC. It was going to be wiped off the map with nothing to replace it. I am extremely proud that I was able to advocate on behalf of my farmers, who were facing a serious challenge of fireweed in the Bega Valley, that we replace the loss of the weeds CRC with a new National Weeds and Productivity Research Program for which we have assigned $15.3 million. This is very much appreciated by our farmers. Unless you get out there and understand the threat of serrated tussock, of African love grass, of fireweed, you cannot understand that these are great threats to the productivity of our farmers. We needed research happening there. We need to get into management and eradication programs. All of that was completely neglected by the previous government. They were going to can the weeds CRC and abandon our farmers to their fate in trying to deal with invasive species. Well, we have not. We have picked that ball up and we have run with it and we are helping them in that process by backing up that research money with extra money through caring for our country and environmental stewardship programs to be applied to eradication. I have seen many examples of the success of that in my own electorate.
I say to the coalition: do not come to the dispatch box dripping hypocrisy, cheap politics and intellectual bankruptcy. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to, for once, be helpful to farmers and not sacrifice their best interests on the altar of his unbridled ambition.
All I can say is God help the graziers in Northern Australia when you have got that type of absolute uninformed drivel that is coming forward here on an issue that is so critically vital to so many families in Northern Australia. We are supposed to be talking about the banning of live exports. He talks about drought plans, food plans, carbon farming infrastructure, pesticides and weeds. He talks about everything except what concerns those families that will be sitting there today listening to this debate wondering when they are going to get their next pay cheque. The last one would have been at the end of the season last year. Many of those people, particularly in my electorate, that service this market, which is the overwhelming majority through Cape York, would have only started mustering in May because they could not get access into their country because the Peninsula Developmental Road was still shut at Easter. They have that one chance of getting a cheque for the year, for those few months. This is something that this mob on the other side have no understanding of at all. They get one opportunity to get a cheque once a year.
This is repeated right across Northern Australia. He talked about it only going to be six months. By my calculation, six months comes in about November or December this year. It is either too hot or the rains have started and the opportunity to get those 500,000 head of cattle across Northern Australia that would be going to this market has been lost. What happens with those cattle? He talks about our being humane and that we have them in the feedlots; we know they are being looked after there. How long are they going to be looked after? I have not seen any offer to feed this stock. Where are we going to process these animals? You are going to need your pesticides and your weed control as these animals will put on extra pressure if we leave them on these properties, because they will be overstocked. You are going to need all the pesticides and weed control you can get. It is going to blow your carbon initiative out the window too, I would suggest, with the numbers of cattle that we are talking about!
Quite frankly, this is an absolute disgrace. All of us that saw the program on 30 May were shocked at the revelations and there is nobody that would say that the treatment of some of those creatures was in any way acceptable. It needs to be addressed immediately. As shadow minister I have supported the minister's initiative of immediately putting a ban on those abattoirs that were featured and that showed they could not provide the appropriate level of processing. I applauded that because I thought to myself, 'We have got a minister on the other side that actually might know what he is doing.' But how disappointing. What the minister did was react to media. He reacted to form letters. He had understanding. He should have been on a plane the next day to Indonesia, saying: 'Let's have a look at this. What have we got to do to fix this problem?' He had no idea. Here we are today and people still have no idea where they are going as far as their economic future is concerned. He still has not got on that plane; he has not bothered to check. In preparing to speak here tonight, I thought I would have a look at the government website. Maybe that will give me a little insight into the thinking of the minister and the department. I have here the Australian government's response to the mistreatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs, dated 27 April 2011. The program was aired on 30 May. Obviously they knew about it just prior to it being aired. The website has not been updated. It says:
Australia leads the world in animal welfare practices. The Australian Government does not tolerate cruelty towards animals and will not compromise on animal welfare standards.
He talks about being asleep at the wheel! This mob has been in for four years, and this is what they say on the website. For anyone going to the Australian government website to find out what is happening, this is the current information. It further states:
Suggestions that the live trade could be completely replaced by chilled or frozen meat fails to take into account the requirements of the market. While Australia has developed a significant trade in meat products, the lack of refrigeration and cold chain facilities, as well as strong cultural preferences for freshly slaughtered meat, precludes Australia from servicing all of its export markets with processed meat products.
This is what is on the website even today. This is what you read from the minister, but what is said here contradicts absolutely the decision he made.
The shadow minister was right: we introduced NLIS tags to this country some years ago. There was some objection within industry, but the tags are very effective and they are now a national requirement. In the Northern Territory and in Western Australia there have been some exceptions to their use on cattle for export, but the exporters themselves are demanding that the NLIS tags are in place on animals before they are loaded on the boat. From what I understand, only about 10 per cent of animals going overseas now do not have NLIS tags. Those on the other side suggest that it cannot happen, but it can happen overnight. It is a simple application. For those on the other side who have no understanding of how you deal with cattle, it is a simple matter: as the cattle go through the crush, it is a one-hand operation to apply the NLIS tag. As far as registration is concerned, there is a reader in the crush and every single animal that goes through that crush is read. That record is with that animal all the way through the process. We know that there are seven large processing abattoirs in Indonesia that can deal with this problem to Australian standards, which are much higher than other international standards. It should be happening right now. There is no reason why it cannot be applied immediately. There are cattle that are ready to go out now. There is nowhere else for those cattle to be treated.
I have an email here from Shirley McPherson, the chairperson of the Indigenous Land Corporation. Like all of us, she was absolutely shocked at the footage and the way that the cattle had been handled. She contrasted the excellent treatment of Australian cattle on the properties of origin, on export boats and in Indonesian feeding lots. She went on to say in the email that the ILC is involved with 80 Indigenous properties, collectively running over 200,000 head. They employ over 700 people and there are approximately 14,000 Indigenous people living on or near these pastoral properties. As the minister said, there are many more Indigenous people involved in this industry. It gives them a whole lot of benefits. Shirley states here that there is significantly increased employment and accredited training opportunities, increased income for Indigenous people, increased capacity as a result of training, and increased self-esteem, pride and wellbeing. These are all of the things that we talk about, including this mob over here, such as closing the gap.
These are the sorts of things that actually close the gap. They have no other opportunities in these areas other than to be processing cattle. It is what they want to do and what they do well, and here you are robbing them of that opportunity. It is all very well to say it is only six months. Six months income means a lot to people. Cameron and Doreen Quartermaine up at Watson River Station have spent a lifetime building up their property, which is at the tip of Cape York, near Weipa. They are totally reliant on the export market. They have not had a pay cheque since last year, and they are not going to get a pay cheque this year. I do not see this mob going to them saying, 'We're going to get out there. We'll help them. We'll fill that in.' They have cattle there that they have to process. We have to move very, very quickly. There is no reason why we cannot be loading cattle onto boats today or tomorrow to go into those accredited abattoirs, and the other ones have to be fixed. We need to be moving quickly on that.
What we have got to do, though, is get the minister on a plane—maybe the parliamentary secretary will jump on the plane with him so that he does go over there, so that the next time he comes into this place he can contribute to some level of informed debate on a process that is destroying a huge number of people's livelihoods in Northern Australia. I think they should be shamed for their lack of action, their lack of compassion and their total lack of understanding of an industry that is worth $1.8 billion to this community but, more importantly, for each and every one of the people who are affected by this, aside from those whose livelihoods have been affected in Northern Australia. These people here have a knee-jerk reaction, as I said, to form letters and have no understanding of the consequences. They stand condemned for this appalling treatment.
Mr Truss interjecting—
The member for Moreton has the call.
I am not a cattle producer. I do have some cattle in my electorate, member for Wide Bay, and I have some familiarity with the cattle industry. My grandfather was a butcher, my father was a butcher, my uncle was a butcher and my brothers were butchers. In fact, my brother-in-law still trades in meat. So I do have some connection with the meat industry. In fact, my first job was in a butcher's shop. My mum used to own a butcher's shop, and I even worked in abattoirs when I was going through teachers' college. I have a little bit of a connection with the meat industry but there are not a lot of cattle in my electorate, I will admit that—apart from one school's herd. Nevertheless, I do know a little bit about it; it involves ships going overseas with live cattle in them. My understanding is that you have vets on the ship, obviously sailors, and I think there are people who focus on making sure that they clean up after the cattle—all the bovine faeces. It is only appropriate I have a bit of respect for those people, coming on after the member for Wide Bay. This is an amazing MPI from the member for Wide Bay, who took 18 months to bring in a scheme for the national identification of animals and then comes out today and says, 'We can do it overnight, instantaneously, in 24 hours.' For the benefit of those people listening and the copious number of people in the gallery, I will give you a little bit of history. I take you back to 1997 and a statement by the federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson. He was talking about the initiation of the Meat and Livestock Association. He issued this press release in Brisbane. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you may even have been there with him. I know you have a lot of cattle producers in your electorate. It is appropriate that it was released in Queensland where 42 per cent of meat processing takes place. In fact, it is one of the strongest manufacturing sectors in Queensland. This was his statement:
The new structural arrangements for the red meat industry, which come into effect on 1 July 1998, are a watershed for the industry. They deliver a more efficient structure, increased responsibilities and, of most importance, give ownership and control of the industry back to everyone involved in meat production in Australia.
These arrangements are my most significant and important reforms ever undertaken by government. They signal a new direction of cooperation between government and industry.
Very clearly, right from the word go, the Howard government minister said that the Meat and Livestock Association will have control. And they do it by putting a compulsory levy on cattle sales and the slaughter of beasts. So whatever the sales and whatever the slaughters, money goes to the MLA. People pay a levy and then they can choose to become a member of the MLA. It sounds a bit like a bargaining fee to me, but being union thugs, we have retreated from such behaviour! The union movement never went for that. We do not believe in bargaining fees—rather, some people in the union movement do, but most union members say that you must volunteer to be in the union. In fact, yesterday I heard the member for Wannon proudly saying that he had never joined a union. He did not say that he had refused pay rises negotiated by the Community and Public Sector Union or anything like that.
They did not want him anyway.
No. Anyway, that is the way the scheme works. It is basically a bargaining fee. You have to pay the fee but you can choose to be a member after you pay the fee. So what is the MLA do. I should say upfront that there are a lot of very smart people in the MLA. Some of the research they do is very commendable, particularly some of the work measuring methane coming from sheep and cattle. They have done some wonderful things. It says on their web page:
MLA has the unique responsibility of providing marketing and research and development services to over 47,000 cattle, sheep and goat producer members and the broader red meat industry to help them meet community and consumer expectations.
MLA is committed to fostering world leadership for the Australian red meat and livestock industry by creating opportunities—
and the like. The MLA is charged with that job. That is why it was set up. A levy is paid every time an animal is slaughtered, every time an animal is sold and the MLA has that responsibility. I would suggest that any reasonable person would agree that the MLA has dropped the ball on this occasion. I know there are a lot of good people in there working hard but we are the government and we have to cop flak. We accept that the buck stops with us. We are responsible but I would suggest the MLA is culpable here for really dropping the ball in terms of what was going on in Indonesia. The MLA is the peak body representing the meat and livestock industry. It gets a government subsidy for research and lots of things but as stated in the Australian today:
... the meat and livestock industry, which gets a government subsidy for research and development, planned to spend $3.4 million on improving animal welfare in 2010-11 compared with $23 million on marketing beef exports, out of total expected earnings of $173m.
The reality is the MLA was charged with a certain job and it dropped the ball.
They changed the job to suit the—
They did. With my limited understanding of the meat industry—my family has a history in the meat industry—I do know this: the more sweat you put into doing something with meat, the more you can charge when you sell it. Rather than sell a quarter of a beast, if you turn it into sausages and roasts, all those sorts of things, you make more. Basically, you value add with labour input—a simple fact. There are lots of pressures on our meat processing sector. The high Australian dollar obviously is one. We have had droughts, we have had floods in the north in the member for Leichardt's electorate and we have had supply issues but the live export of meat has been growing. For sheep it has been pretty stable, but there are the same pressures.
In 2005, 573,000 head were exported; in 2009, 949,000 were exported; it is expected to go to a million head this year. Despite those pressures, the industry has been growing and the sad thing is we miss out on the value adding. As a Queenslander I know we have had abattoirs closed down in Killarney and in Pittsworth, mainly in rural and regional areas. I think the member Kennedy was talking about the Innisfail abattoir. We have had Northern Territory abattoirs closed and an abattoir in Cairns closed.
Yes, let's talk about the Northern Territory.
I am sure the member opposite, when she returns to her seat, would support jobs for workers. Once you close down an abattoir it is almost impossible to come back. I have seen it in my home town. My brother managed a sheep processing place in St George and when it closed down that was it. You would know that, Deputy Speaker Scott. When they close down, the jobs go and that is bad for the local industry.
In the last 35 years, more than 150 meat processing facilities have closed down. That is a loss of about 40,000 jobs. When we process meat, we add about 20 per cent more to the meat and the jobs that go with processing are extra as well. Obviously there are extra costs in terms of occupational health and safety and inspectors, all the things that go with our world standards, which I suggest are some of the highest in the world.
Those opposite are exercising short-term politics. Minister Mr McGauran had banned live sheep exports before the credits for 60 Minutes had come up. (Time expired)
There are a couple of major issues facing Australia which nicely intersect and which the government has the means to positively improve without imposing a heavy-handed tax on an unsuspecting public. These issues are carbon pollution reduction and lubricating oil supply. A carbon tax will not reduce global temperatures by one degree nor decrease sea levels by one millimetre. But positive measures such as that proposed by this side of politics, and one I am about to explain in more detail, will reduce Australia's carbon footprint.
With the closure of the Kurnell lubrication oil plant, Australia now must import 90 per cent of its lubrication oil. This issue has been raised by senior Labor figures such as Paul Howes as a serious sovereignty concern. Lubrication is vital to a productive modern economy. Lack of lubrication is the main failure mode of all plant and equipment. It is an essential component of every machine. Without it our mining and industrial sectors would grind to a halt, not to mention the impact on anyone who drives a car, takes a bus or a train. Without a reliable local source of supply we are exposing our economy to risk. This risk is compounded by the fact that if you believe that we have reached peak oil, as the Greens assert, then oil supplies will start to decline in coming years.
Fortunately there are still two manufacturers of lubrication oil left in Australia. Both of these facilities exist because of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act, also known as the PSO. This act was passed by the federal parliament in 2001. The act allows for a levy to be collected from the consumers of all new oil lubrication products sold in Australia. The money is collected by the Australian Taxation Office and the scheme is administered by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Funds are paid out of the scheme to encourage the collection and recycling of used oil. By all measures the scheme has been operating successfully. Since the scheme's inception, collection rates have increased from 40 per cent to 60 per cent of all oil sold and two re-refineries have been built
Re-refining of used oil provides significant environmental benefits. The chief amongst these is a substantial reduction in carbon pollution. It is estimated that Australia could reduce its greenhouse footprint by 600,000 tonnes per year if all the used oil currently collected was re-refined. That figure does not include the carbon pollution produced from digging up the crude oil overseas, transporting it to an overseas oil refinery and then to Australia. Add this into the equation and you are talking about savings in the order of millions of tonnes per year. The solution to positively address two significant issues for our country is within our control. With some minor modifications to the PSO, the government would create the conditions to encourage greater investment in re-refineries to secure local supply of a vital commodity, produce significant environmental benefits and help insulate Australia against the impact peak oil will have on us in the future.
On 7 April this year, I visited the Australian owned Southern Oil Refineries in Wagga Wagga and its re-refinery situated at the progressive Bomen industrial business park. It was great to see things in action. I came away with small sample bottles of used oil and base oil. These illustrate the beginning and end process of the refinery's unique used oil re-refining process. Used oil is collected from service stations, fleet workshops and industry. It is contaminated with water, sludge, soot and fuels. It looks like a thick product in the bottle and is black in colour. The base oil features complete removal of contaminants and is even more stable than virgin base oils. It is ready for blending with additives for superior performance. Almost unbelievably, it is the same colour as oil you would purchase from the supermarket.
I was shown around this facility by the managing director Tim Rose, refinery manager David Onions and Jennifer Parsons, the director of J.J. Richards and Sons. This refinery produces a large range of base oil products, all manufactured from previously used lube oils rather than crude oil as at traditional oil refineries. The re-refinery also produces a range of fuels and oils as by-products. Southern Oil Refineries manufacture two grades of group 1 oil for a wide range of hydraulic oil and lubrication oil blending applications. Tests have demonstrated that these oils are at least as good as, and in some specific ways better, than base oils made from crude oil.
One of our 2010 election priorities was for incentives to be provided for more widespread use of alternative fuels and renewable energy. If we expect Australians to change their attitudes and take practical measures against dangerous climate change—as those on that side hysterically term it—then the government should be setting an example, not placing yet another unnecessary tax on ordinary, everyday, hardworking Australians. (Time expired)
Those Liberal and National Party MPs who are now calling on the government to resume live cattle exports to Indonesia run a serious risk of returning us to the barbaric and unacceptable practices which were revealed by the ABC program Four Corners. Their demands call into question their commitment to animal welfare. They show a contempt for the views of the Australian people, who do not want to see live cattle exports resumed any time soon, and they do the meat industry a disservice. Rather than putting pressure on the government to resume live exports, they should be showing some leadership and steering the industry away from the live export industry and towards the meat processing industry here in Australia.
We have been putting too many eggs in the live export basket and we need to develop the domestic industry instead. Rural MPs should be telling farmers and producers, who we are told were horrified by the Four Corners revelations, that the jig is up on live exports and it is time to move to the domestic industry. The government does not need to yield to opposition pressure to resume this trade any time soon. To see the opposition running interference on the government's serious endeavours to solve this problem makes you wonder whether the Liberal and National parties are genuinely committed to animal welfare at all. The Australian people do not want the suspension to be lifted. If we lift the suspension, I fear that the pressure which is now on the industry to lift its game will fade away. I believe the only proper basis for live cattle exports to Indonesia or elsewhere is stunning—no stun, no deal—tracking, so we know what happens to cattle that leave our shores, and monitoring. I think the industry and the Indonesian authorities should think seriously about funding someone from the RSPCA or the World Society for the Protection of Animals to be present at accredited abattoirs with a video camera wherever these abattoirs are operating. That kind of scrutiny could restore public confidence in an industry whose credibility has taken a monumental hit.
I am really disappointed that the Liberal Party are opposing the suspension. When there were similar revelations of cruelty to cattle being exported to Egypt in 2006, the Howard government acted promptly to suspend the trade. It was not resumed for three years. The sky did not fall in. Animal welfare standards were improved. So I am really disappointed. They have gone backwards in their commitment to animal welfare since they went into opposition.
There was a media report in the Age this week that the caucus had 'backed down' on the issue of live cattle exports to Indonesia. This was a strange and unfair characterisation of the strong and united stand taken by the parliamentary Labor Party, which has delivered a really significant breakthrough. The media report has led to some genuine members of the public being concerned about our actions, so let me make the record very clear. At the caucus meeting at which the member for Page and I gave notice of motion, the government moved to suspend exports to the dozen abattoirs which had been featured in the Four Corners TV program footage. After that meeting, we made it clear that we would persist with our motion because we were concerned that there were other abattoirs among the over 100 in Indonesia which could be engaged in similar practices, and because we saw ships still going off to Indonesia and we could not guarantee the Australian people that those barbaric practices were not continuing. The Australian people did not want business as usual; they wanted action. Then the government acted to suspend the trade.
This was a game-changing announcement, and the suspension is doing a power of good. We are now seeing a flurry of activity on the part of the Indonesian government and the industry. The consequences of the suspension will be a lifting in standards and an end to the cruel practices which have gone on. There should also be a move in the direction of processing meat in Australia. This is no backdown; this is a breakthrough. I am very proud of the way in which many members of the parliamentary Labor Party have stood up to be counted for decency in our treatment of animals.
Now we are hearing complaints about the economic impact of suspending this trade. I do not believe these complaints to be well founded. Alternatives are available. But in any event, some things are more important than money. We should not seek to make a profit on the back of the torture, misery and suffering of powerless animals. When William Wilberforce introduced his anti-slavery bill to the British parliament in 1791, people complained that it would annihilate a trade that employed over 5,000 sailors. That argument was rejected 200 years ago and we should reject it again today. (Time expired)
I rise today to raise serious concerns about what I see as unconscionable gouging practices by the big banks in my electorate. Over an extended period of time, Far North Queensland has suffered what could be described as almost the perfect storm. The hangover from the GFC has stopped many travellers from 2008 until now travelling to our region. The region's economy is 40 per cent reliant on the tourism industry. The high Australian dollar means it is relatively more expensive for overseas tourists to come to Cairns. It also means it is cheaper for Australians to travel overseas, which impacts on domestic destinations. The Japanese earthquake has done little to encourage travel from that area. Media coverage of Cyclone Yasi and the floods has misled many potential tourists into believing the area had significant cyclone damage. Also, as a result of these sorts of issues, our unemployment is the highest in the country. If you add to that the damage to our sugar crop and our dairy industry on the tablelands, we have really being doing it tough for a long period of time. The other problem we have is that the majority of people, particularly in Cairns, work in the private sector. We have very little in the way of government spending in that area. So these sorts of events have a significant negative impact on businesses.
What we are seeing now—and it worries me considerably—is some of the major banks stepping in and encouraging the valuers to go out and revalue commercial properties downwards some 20 per cent. They are then calling in those borrowers and raising issues in relation to their debt to equity ratios. Prior to 2008, lending was often available at a 70 to 80 per cent loan to valuation ratio. They were very keen to throw money at any of their clients looking to borrow and invest in these areas. What they are doing now is reducing these valuations on people who have not defaulted or in any way missed their payments. They are now calling them in and saying, 'We have reassessed the value of your assets and we need to bring your borrowings back into order.' They are now seeking 65 per cent or lower debt to equity ratios.
This is being driven primarily by the banks. They are saying, 'We want you to either put more money into it or sell assets.' However, when people are trying to sell assets the banks are very reluctant to lend on them, so you are in a situation where you are having to find somebody to buy it with cash and in this market it is very difficult. They are driving it down and down and down as we speak. They are charging an extra three per cent premium because they call it an extra risk. I have one situation were a constituent is being charged an extra $48,000 a month in penalty interest by the bank, which has forced him into a default situation. That money has been accumulated on top of what is already a significant debt. We need these banks to show some compassion, because there is no way in the world this matter is going to be resolved if they keep driving people down and driving businesses into bankruptcy. There is no benefit at all to our community. I call on the banks to have a moratorium on this issue and to lay off our business community. Give them a chance to recover. There are some very positive prospects as we look towards the future—if the banks lay off a little bit, particularly in relation to the LDRs and allow people a chance to recover. We as a community would all prosper if they did this, but instead they continue to bankrupt businesses that have been great clients of theirs. Quite frankly, I think it is totally inappropriate that they continue to gouge in this way.
I rise to honour the memory of Frank O'Sullivan, the first Mayor of the City of Elizabeth. Frank was born on 24 March 1924 in my home town of Kapunda and, like so many of his generation, served in the Australian Army during World War II from 1943 to 1946. He was later employed as a district officer of the Commonwealth Employment Service at Gawler and moved to Elizabeth with his family in October 1956.
The new suburb of Elizabeth came under the Salisbury City Council and in 1958 two wards were formed—Elizabeth South and Elizabeth North. Frank O'Sullivan was elected as a councillor for Elizabeth South from 1958 to 1962. He then became involved in the severance of the then suburb of Elizabeth from Salisbury Council into its own council, the Council of Elizabeth. Frank became the Mayor-designate of Elizabeth from 1964 to 1965. In John Lewis's history of Salisbury, it was said of Frank O'Sullivan that he had:
... a natural flair for communication and debate. A sense of logic and fairness characterised his deliberations and his influence did much to raise the standard of council meetings. His election as first Mayor of Elizabeth was a surprise to nobody.
Frank O'Sullivan obviously was a pillar of the community. He was part of the Elizabeth RSL, a justice of the peace, active in the Catholic Church and the Central Districts Legacy, and he was on the local school board. He was married to Pauline and they had seven children. It seems to me that the first mayor of Elizabeth very much characterised the nature of Elizabeth itself. Elizabeth is a great working-class community—a great place to live, work and raise a family.
Most recently we have seen some new initiatives in Elizabeth. The government has looked at some of the problems that the local community has identified and is acting to help the community to fix them. One of those initiatives has made northern Adelaide a priority employment area. It is one of those areas across Australia that is receiving $45 million over two years from the current budget to support new activities to help retrenched workers to get back into work and to help job seekers get the training they need to gain jobs in areas of skill shortages. The funding will support opportunities for disadvantaged job seekers to get a foothold in the labour market, to foster social enterprises, provide new opportunities for work, provide information on how to access assistance, and support communities to run local job drives and industry events. In 2010 we had a jobs expo in Elizabeth and thousands of people turned out. It was quite an incredible event. People lined up to get into the jobs expo and literally hundreds of people got jobs that day as part of that process.
One of the other important things the government has introduced in the city of Playford, which encompasses the old city of Elizabeth, is income management. This program has been trialled in five communities across the country—a $96 million initiative over five years. It is a targeted program and one that will help vulnerable families and individuals to manage their households. It is all about stabilising households that have had some trouble. It includes parents who have been referred to Centrelink by state or territory child protection authorities and then assessed by Centrelink as vulnerable, as well as people who volunteer for income management.
These initiatives and others like them will help return the city of Elizabeth and the city of Playford back to that great working-class community. We want to make sure that we get the best results in this growing economy. Where there are jobs to be had, we want to make sure that we rebuild communities that have been buffeted over the last three decades by some of the changes to the economy, recessions and the loss of unskilled jobs. Just as Frank O'Sullivan worked so hard to make Elizabeth a new suburb, we want to make sure that it is a great working-class community in the years ahead.
I rise to speak about sarcoma cancer and the work of the Hannah's Chance Foundation Gold Coast Committee, specifically the work done to raise awareness of sarcoma cancer since the untimely death of swimming legend Tracey Wickham's daughter Hannah Ciobo in 2007. For those unacquainted with Hannah's story, Hannah was only 19 years old when she lost her battle with sarcoma. Like many young women, Hannah was a young, vibrant schoolgirl. She was a sister, a daughter and, for a very short time, a wife. She met the love of her life Tom O'Driscoll when they both received treatment for similar conditions. Tom and Hannah were engaged, planning the rest of their lives together, but when Hannah's condition deteriorated a wedding ceremony was hurriedly held at her bedside. Hannah was a wife for three hours before the sarcoma cancer took her life.
More than 1,000 people in Australia are diagnosed with sarcoma each year. Sarcoma predominately affects young people between 12 and 25 years of age and makes up to 25 per cent of the total cancers in children. There are close to 100 varieties of sarcoma, making up three per cent of all cancers, including bone, muscle, blood, lymph vessel, nerve tissue and fat tissue sarcomas. The cancer is very aggressive, killing two in five patients. The role of Hannah's Chance Foundation is to support patients and their families, and to raise much needed funds to assist in finding a cure. The foundation has been establishing a band of supporters all around Australia to ensure increased awareness throughout the community. Each year, Hannah's Chance Foundation takes part in the International Sarcoma Awareness Week. Last year, more than 21,000 participants from around the globe participated in the initiative, raising more than $640,000. Locally, the Gold Coast committee worked tirelessly over three separate events raising $35,000. I would like to commend the efforts of the Gold Coast committee's Leigh Webb, Karen Erskine, Carmen Thompson, Aideen Quigley, Nadine Delahunty and Angela Morris. Without the dedication of these women, the success of last year's fundraising events would not have been possible.
This year, the committee has been busy organising events to be held on the southern Gold Coast between 13 and 24 July. The first event will be the 3rd annual Butterfly Dinner Dance, which is sold out. It will be held in the Twin Towns Showroom, on the border of Queensland and New South Wales—most likely, the largest charity ball ever held on the southern Gold Coast. I welcome this event as an opportunity to promote and create awareness for Hannah's Chance within the McPherson electorate. The support from local businesses for this event and for this cause has been overwhelming.
To date more than 30 businesses have helped sponsor the event. I would like to commend the consistent efforts over the last three years by Gary McNeill from Formula Energy, Mark Goody from Camping World Currumbin and Sharon and Rick Gobain from the Palm Beach pool shop. I would also like to acknowledge a local Currumbin jeweller, Rex Horsley, for his generous donation of a $6,500 diamond necklace, which will be raffled off. In addition to the Butterfly Dinner Dance, the Gold Coast committee for Hannah's Chance are holding the 3rd annual Sarcoma Surf Tag Team Challenge at Palm Beach—again, within the McPherson electorate. Last year, the event drew international media coverage for sarcoma awareness and, of course, it creates great opportunities for the Gold Coast to be showcased around the world.
Sarcoma survivor and former Australian pro-surfer, Richie Lovett, is a Hannah's Chance ambassador. Richie underwent a full hip replacement as part of his battle against sarcoma. His inspirational story has inspired many young sarcoma sufferers, including local Elanora high school student, Corey Webb. Like Richie, Corey shares a passion for surfing. Corey was an upcoming surf life saving champion at the Palm Beach Surf Life Saving Club before being diagnosed in January last year. He was just 14 at the time and the diagnosis came as an additional shock to the family, with Corey's father, Tony, already battling sarcoma tumours. After intensive chemotherapy, Corey is in rehabilitation, getting back into his love for surfing and is completing year 11 at high school. Corey's mother and Tony's wife, Leigh Webb, has been a wonderful support for the boys and has spent many hours planning and organising events for the Gold Cost committee of Hannah's Chance Foundation.
I would like to conclude by commending the efforts of those directly involved with the Hannah's Chance Foundation and extend my sympathy to the many young sufferers battling life with sarcoma. I encourage the public and ask for their support for this not-for-profit organisation so that, collectively, a cure can be discovered.
I rise to pass on my condolences and I am sure those of this House in relation to Desmond Patrick Webb, a person in the Petrie electorate known not only for his tremendous effort with the Redcliffe Leagues Club and the Redcliffe district rugby league club but also for his community spirit in everything he did in the Redcliffe peninsula. Dessy passed away on 7 June 2011 at the age of 73. His service was held on Tuesday, 14 June. Many people turned up for that service. Unfortunately, obviously I could not be in attendance because I was here in parliament. I want to convey one of the messages delivered at Dessy's service, one that really reflects who Dessy was. It was delivered by Rupert McCall, the well-known master of ceremonies, guest speaker, media presenter and extremely talented poet, and Redcliffe boy. Rupert did what Rupert does best and he wrote a poem about Dessy. This is Rupert McCall's poem, The Rock:
No harder man that played the game—no fairer man that coached
No kinder man that gave his hand, no matter who approached
No stronger man to guide a Club—no prouder man to cheer
No finer bloke to stand beside and share an ice cold beer
His word was worth its weight in gold—his character was vast
For loyalty and decency, no greater man has passed
And teams may come and teams may go and tides will flow and ebb
But never will this Club forget the name of Dessy Webb
He defined the D in Dolphin—he 'The King of Red and White'
The rock of Redcliffe Rugby League—the man who led the fight
And across the whole Peninsula, his passion lent support
A man of generosity, of quality untaught
Now his mateship is our memory—his grin shines in our soul
His legacy, colossal where the red and white waves roll
And teams may come and teams may go and tides will flow and ebb
But never will this Club forget the name of Dessy Webb
I thank Rupert for agreeing to let me read that today. Dessy Webb started playing with the Dolphins in 1976. He was a team manager and an administrator. He joined the board in 1968 and took over as president in 1988, until his passing last week. But he was so much more than just the Redcliffe Dolphins and the Redcliffe Leagues Club—though he was the Redcliffe Leagues Club and the Redcliffe Dolphins. This is a man whom I got to know had a huge heart and a huge community spirit. He spent much time with the club helping young kids and did everything to ensure that they could play the sport, that it was affordable and accessible and that they had great mentors. He also took that message recently out to those schools to teach high school students how to be responsible and consider their actions, and how to follow the right path for their future. He was an amazing man, one that will be sadly missed but of course definitely not forgotten.
One of his sons, Terry, spoke at the service on Tuesday and said how Dessy got into football. He said that he had spotted a young lady that he was attracted to and was courting her, and approached her father, who said, 'If you want to date my daughter, you will play for the Dolphins,' and that is what he did. He continued with the club until his passing last week. On behalf of me and my family, all of those people who got to know Dessy on the Redcliffe peninsula and those associated with the Redcliffe Leagues Club and the Dolphins, we pass on our condolences to his wife, Aileen, and his sons and their families at this very difficult time. Our thoughts and our wishes are with them and they are in our hearts.
Order! It being past 5 pm, the debate is interrupted. In interrupting the debate, I thank young Patrick from the Rockhampton region for sitting attentively throughout the whole of the adjournment tonight.
House adjourned at 17:01
to move:
That this House:
(1) directs the Government to immediately commence an inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's decision to suspend the live cattle export trade to Indonesia and that this inquiry include:
(a) Meat and Livestock Australia and all other related instrumentalities and departmental divisions; and
(b) an investigation of where producers' $5 per ox sale levy is being spent and how much of this $5 has been expended on 'animal welfare' and how effectively this money has been spent;
(2) directs the Government to within two weeks:
(a) deploy 10 Australian officials to Indonesia;
(b) direct these officials, along with Indonesian Government appointees, to immediately implement an upgrading of Indonesian abattoirs to meet humane standards currently met in Australia; and
(c) instruct Indonesian meatworkers on how to process to humane standards currently met in Australia;
(3) directs the Government to ship to Indonesia 60 stun guns with knocking boxes and video cameras within seven days, and to provide appropriate training;
(4) directs the Government as a matter of urgency to:
(a) begin accrediting Indonesian abattoirs that already meet humane standards currently met in Australia;
(b) begin accrediting Indonesian abattoirs that have been newly upgraded to meet humane standards currently met in Australia;
(c) implement supply chain traceability and auditing systems; and
(d) implement independent monitoring of conditions in Indonesian abattoirs; and
(5) once the conditions in part 4 are satisfied, calls on the Government to immediately allow the resumption of trade with accredited Indonesian abattoirs that meet humane standards currently met in Australia.
to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges and commemorates the:
(a) ninety-second anniversary of the Maltese Uprising on 7 June;
(b) loss of Maltese life at the hands of the British Empire during Malta's struggle for independence; and
(c) efforts of Maltese individuals such as, Manwel Attard, Guze Bajada, Wenzu Dyer, Karmenu Abela, as well as Cikku Darmanin and Toni Caruana, as part of the Maltese struggle for independence; and
(2) records its appreciation for the valuable contributions made by the Maltese-Australian community to all aspects of our society.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) took the chair at 09:34.
I rise today to talk about a matter that has long been a concern to the residents of my electorate—namely, aircraft noise emanating from Sydney airport. When the Howard government was elected it was determined to ensure there was a fair sharing of aircraft noise over the suburbs of Sydney, a policy that had bipartisan support. Following a long and very difficult consultation process led by the Sydney Airport Community Forum, of which I was the chairman at the time, the government formally adopted the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport. The plan meant that the percentage of aircraft operations over the northern suburbs of Sydney would drop to an average of 17 per cent. LTOP remains the policy that is meant to guide the government and Airservices Australia in relation to aircraft movements.
I know from the calls, emails and letters to my office and from statements by constituents that in many parts of my electorate people are frustrated that Airservices Australia has failed to implement LTOP targets. They failed to do it under the coalition government and they are failing to do it today under the Labor government. I know that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is using his best endeavours—he and I have a shared and common interest in this—but LTOP is not being delivered, and the matter is getting worse, not better, for local residents. After 13 years, there are real questions about Airservices Australia and its commitment to the implementation of LTOP in relation to the target for the northern approaches. It is time for the minister to take direct action to ensure those targets are met.
Statistics presented to the Sydney Airport Community Forum show the extent of the failure. Over the north, Airservices Australia has come nowhere near the 17 per cent target. Over the last three years the percentage of movements to the north has hovered at over 30 per cent—almost double. In the face of such recalcitrance the government should immediately expand the brief given to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. Specifically, the ombudsman's charter should be amended to specifically include assessing the performance of Airservices Australia in relation to meeting its LTOP targets. We need more scrutiny of Airservices Australia because they seem incapable of moving or unwilling to move.
Again, I recognise the commitment of Minister Albanese in this regard. I praise him for sharing the same values in relation to this matter as I have, but we want action. If Airservices Australia does not move, then we will start to push for some sort of independent commission of inquiry into Airservices Australia to find out why it is not delivering the LTOP targets. (Time expired)
Today I would like to talk about the appointment of Professor Patrick Tam of the Children's Medical Research Institute, which is located in my electorate, as a fellow of the Royal Society of London. This prestigious society is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence and has included as fellows the likes of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin.
Professor Tam is a world authority in early mouse embryo development and has received the honour for his outstanding scientific achievements and a career-long contribution to biological science. Professor Tam is best recognised for his pioneering work of 28 years in investigating how the basic body plan of the early mouse embryo takes shape by performing meticulous mapping of the ways cells differentiate and move in concert. His 'fate-maps' reveals how cells are put together to form the essential building blocks for different parts of the body and how that development is controlled by signals and genetic switches. His work has laid the foundation for his ongoing research into the developmental causes of birth defects and cell based therapy. Professor Tam, who is currently deputy director and head of the Embryology Research Unit at the Children's Medical Research Institute, joins 43 other newly elected fellows who are the most eminent scientists, engineers and technologists from the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
The Children's Medical Research Institute is an independent organisation working towards unlocking the mysteries of disease. The institute also conducts fundamental genetic research to understand the importance of genes for health and development. Professor Tam's research adds to this noble goal. This is not the first acknowledgement Professor Tam has received. Previous accolades have included the President's Medal of the Australia and New Zealand Society of Cell and Developmental Biology in 2007 as well as fellowships to the Australian Academy of Science in 2008 and the Society of Biology in 2009. This accolade comes on top of the many awards Professor Tam has received throughout his distinguished career, including the Croucher Foundation Fellowship tenable at the University of Oxford and the Symington Memorial Prize of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland. There is no doubt that when it comes to developmental biology Professor Tam is an international superstar.
This government understands the importance of research such as this. This year we have again reconfirmed our commitment to health and medical research by maintaining the all-time-high levels of funding—$746.1 million to the National Health and Medical Research Council for health and medical research, an increase of 4.3 per cent on last year's funding.
I congratulate Professor Tam on his achievement, which I note is the highest scientific honour ever achieved by a CMRI scientist in its 52-year history. I wish him and the Children's Medical Research Institute all the best in their continued efforts to unlock the mysteries of disease.
I rise to speak on an issue of great concern to some residents of my electorate. Nasser Sedghi is a well-respected businessman in Dubbo. His brother Farhad was arrested several weeks ago in Tehran by the authorities. He is being held in prison in Tehran and no charges have been laid. Farhad Sedghi is an academic and a member of the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i are pacifists and in Iran they are being denied access to education. Farhad Sedghi was working delivering educational opportunities to the Baha'is through an online university in Tehran and has been arrested and held without any charge. Farhad is 64 years old. His family had no contact with him and they are concerned about his wellbeing. He is not in good health.
I would like to acknowledge the office of Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, with whom I have been in contact and whom I visited yesterday. They pointed out that the situation would be difficult enough if Farhad Sedghi were an Australian citizen but it is nearly impossible when he is an Iranian citizen. In this day and age, it is a very sad state of affairs when someone of a gentle faith whose only supposed crime was to try and deliver education to his fellow man—a respected citizen and a man with an impeccable record and very high standing within the Tehran community—could be arrested at this stage of his life and held without charge for an indefinite period. I believe the foreign minister will do everything possible in diplomatic circles to help Farhad Sedghi. I certainly hope that is possible, because his brother and family in Australia are terribly concerned about his welfare. (Time expired)
I rise today for a very sad reason. We have lost two great local identities in my electorate in recent times. My colleague Andrew Leigh spoke about the Newtown bookseller Bob Gould in the main chamber. Today I want to speak about Trevor Davies, a local identity in the Redfern and Darlington area for many years, who died very suddenly and unexpectedly over the weekend from a heart condition that had troubled him all his life. Trevor was born in Wales. He lived for the last 30 years in the Redfern area in public or community social housing. He was just the most dynamic man. He was prevented from working. He had dyslexia, sleep apnoea and a congenital heart defect—a hole in the heart and a faulty heart valve, which were the things that caused him to lose his life. He had hip and knee problems, but he walked everywhere. With all of those things stacked against him, he still managed to run a very successful Politics in the Pub for many years. He ran a terrific debate between Fred Nile and the Prostitutes Collective about the legalisation of prostitution, for example.
He also started a small community newspaper—a newsletter, really—for ALP branch members, that became the South Sydney Herald which now publishes 16,000 copies each month and has about 400 hours of volunteer work involved in it. It is a terrific newspaper because it talks about the strengths of the local community and tells the stories of the local people, and people feel a very strong sense of ownership of the paper. The people who volunteer to work on the paper or to hand it out get a terrific experience if they are journalism students, and a real sense of connection and belonging if they are community members. Trevor's friend the Reverend Dorothy McRae-McMahon talked a lot about how people get this sense of ownership of the paper and come to the paper and ask, 'Could we have this story in our paper?'
With his connection to the local community, strong friendships in the area and strong friendship with the Aboriginal community of Redfern, many of whom called him brother, Trevor will be sorely missed. He was a social innovator. He was a good Labor man, but he would work with anyone to improve the conditions of the people who lived in his community. He was a dedicated social activist to the end and he will be much missed.
I wish to bring to the parliament's attention that the Rural Financial Counselling Service of Australia is still alive and well and with a job to do. We do not only have droughts in Western Australia. Whereas the physical drought in most of eastern Australia has gone away—one hopes for a long time—the recent harvest certainly exacerbated the problem for some of those who already had suffered 10 years of drought. While it was amazing how much of the grain et cetera in the harvest was able to be rescued and that prices held up, some people actually did not get their crop up or it totally exacerbated their already precarious position.
The Rural Financial Counselling Service—particularly the Central West service which looks after most of New South Wales—has a much bigger case load than it had 12 months ago. It has gone up by some 30 per cent. While only last month I congratulated the federal government and the minister for recommitting to it, there has been in effect a 33 per cent drop in funding for the next four years. That means, for this particular region, that funding has gone from $2.5 million to $1.7 million, which in effect means some counselling services will have to be closed at a time when they have a higher case load than they had before.
While making that point, the Central West Rural Financial Counselling Service should be very careful about closing offices simply because they are outside the major towns, like in Dubbo et cetera. Remember that the further away people are quite often the bigger their problems. I believe that, while the state government has some responsibility here—and there is a shortfall before their budget money comes due in September—the federal government could and should look at making up the shortfall, particularly in this region where the case load is as heavy as it is. This is a situation where a lot of people thought they would get out of trouble this harvest but, after the huge cost of putting in and maintaining the crop and trying to strip a very big harvest, they were unable to do so. Very quickly, I would like to acknowledge a recent loss in the Central West—Graham Blatch, who did more for agriculture in his profession and in his heart than almost anybody I know. (Time expired)
In politics, some of the most important decisions you make are the ones that outlive you, whether it is the Menzies government's decision to expand basic research through the CSIRO, the Keating government's decision to put in place a superannuation guarantee or this government's decision to dramatically improve early childhood education. Great policy is made with the long game in mind. In the case of climate change, the decisions we make today will matter more for my sons than they will for me. It will be my little boys whose world will be most affected if sea levels continue to rise and temperatures increase. Young people in my electorate, much like their peers across Australia, want a clean energy future, a future where Australia prices carbon.
This was the message 24 enthusiastic young Canberrans brought to me last week: Claire Bailey and Laura Hyde, year 9 students from Campbell High School; Kiara Creaser from Dickson College; Fehin Coffey, Sophia Rose O'Rourke, Kirk Demant and Claire Hickstepp from Orana School; Vicki Tjandra and Andrew Lovering from the University of Canberra; and Zoe Anderson, Moira Cully, Laura Hogan, Eliza Hopkins, Lindsey Cole, Charlotte Wood, Joshua Creaser, Jonathan Rosseau, Tess Corkish, Ben Huttner-Koros, Adam Huttner-Koros, Alexandra Gill, Hayley Shone, Ben Molan and Tom Sloan from the Australian National University.
These young Canberrans presented me with a petition signed by 700 people supporting a price on carbon and investment in renewable energy. They did so under the umbrella of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. The AYCC has been determined to see Australia act. They have been dogged in their determination and unwavering in their commitment to ensure youth throughout Australia have their voices heard. It is often said that young, progressive activists are anti-market, that they are hostile to economics. But Australia's young climate change activists show how wrong this is. The AYCC activists I met with understand there is no contradiction between economic growth and environmental preservation and that a market based mechanism is the most efficient way of tackling dangerous climate change.
Speaking of markets, I want to use this opportunity to commend the organiser of Canberra's first 'carrotmob'. Modelled as the environmental equivalent of a flash mob, carrotmobs attract extra shoppers in return for the store owner's commitment to spend the extra revenue on improved energy efficiency. I commend Ren Webb and the other carrotmob organisers who helped Ainslie IGA manager Manuel Xyrakis accumulate an extra $12,000 to spend on reducing his store's carbon footprint.
Thousands of Australians, young and old, support market based mechanisms for tackling climate change. It is time for all members of parliament to get on board. We need to price carbon now.
I rise this morning to speak on the live cattle export ban and to express the concerns of constituents in my electorate. No-one can deny that animal cruelty is wrong. The suspension of exports to non-compliant abattoirs must continue until Australian expectations of acceptable animal welfare practices are met. The coalition does not see these expectations as optional. They must be mandatory and are integral to our requirements for the live export industry. However, a blanket ban on Australian animals being exported to Indonesia will not stop the cruelty. If we turn our backs on this trade, we lose our position to negotiate and resolve the issue. The blanket ban on live exports will be disastrous for Northern Australia and particularly my electorate of Solomon.
As one constituent said to me last week, the cruelty seen in Indonesia is now being dealt out to farming families of Northern Australia. Their livelihood is about to die as cruelly as the cattle in Indonesia. I received this letter last week from one of my constituents and I would like to share it. It reads:
Dear Natasha,
My name is Karynne. I am the mother of two small children whose father has been a cattle truck driver for 30 years. I do not agree with the cruelty that is happening in Indonesia. I do not think that the Australian government have really taken into consideration the snowball effect this decision has made. I just cry everyday thinking what am I going to tell the kids when they ask, 'When is daddy coming home?' What would you have me tell them? 'Sorry, kids, we will not be seeing dad for the next six months because the Gillard government made your daddy lose his job and he has to go far away to find some money so we can have food to eat and live in this house.'
The ban has effectively destroyed the lives of apprentices, mechanics, truck drivers, station owners, diesel mechanics, tyre fitters, stockmen and many other families in the industry. These people did not like seeing the animal cruelty and they did not like seeing the animals they raised being tortured in Indonesia; however, they know that if they want to change that for all cattle we must negotiate a new way.
A Territory-wide petition has since started that urges the government to stop the cruelty and not the trade. I was recently at the Palmerston markets and people came up to me who were literally fearful of the ban. These people were not farmers. They were lawyers, accountants, fruiterers and public servants, to name a few. The ban on live cattle exports goes far beyond the fence lines of Australian cattle stations. The cruelty is what is wrong, not the trade. The Gillard government needs to ban the cruelty and save the trade.
I was pleased to recently have the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice, Brendan O'Connor, visit my electorate of Bass to accompany me and the Hon. Dick Adams, the member for Lyons, at the Rocherlea Football Ground to announce a $250,000 project that will be used to support sport, boost public safety and prevent crime. The Gillard Labor government has granted the Safer Suburbs funding to the Launceston City Council for its Rocherlea Recreation Ground Gymnasium and Sports Facility project, which will be part of the Gillard Labor government's commitment to reducing crime and the fear of crime in the community.
The project will involve the construction of a new recreation facility for the northern suburbs of Launceston which will be used to support community programs. I am also pleased that the Launceston City Council has allocated an additional $250,000. I thank the Mayor of Launceston, Albert van Zetten, for his encouragement of this project. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Launceston City Council for its support in delivering projects that improve community safety. This project brings together the Gillard Labor government, the Launceston City Council, the Rocherlea Football Club and northern suburbs community groups in a common goal of providing a community facility that will be of great benefit to the local community. The project will be not only of great benefit to the local community but also of benefit to other groups. The new facilities will make the ground suitable as a venue for the Northern Tasmanian Football Association finals. It is also sure to benefit local schools, community groups, families and the sporting community. The new facilities will encourage community participation in sporting activities and will build community spirit.
I am a firm believer that to reduce crime we need to keep kids busy and this new facility will enable that to happen. I also wish to congratulate the Rocherlea Football Club on conceiving and developing this project. It represents their commitment to the community. Through this new facility the interaction of their club with community groups will grow and develop. This project will allow interaction between the Rocherlea Football Club, the Launceston City Council and local communities. It is a glowing example of how the Labor government can support and enrich local communities, and as a consequence it will improve the safety and involvement of all in the community.
I have to say that the Rocherlea Football Club have been fantastic. They run the Indigenous round of football in Tasmania—the only sporting association outside the AFL that conduct an Indigenous round of football. They have made an absolutely great commitment to the community and they involve all of the community in every activity they do. I commend the Rocherlea Football Club. (Time expired)
Tonight 175 CEOs will sleep rough in the corridors of Docklands Stadium in Melbourne to raise money for the St Vincent de Paul Society. The event is also being staged to raise awareness of how it feels to sleep rough in the middle of Melbourne. On any night around 2,000 people in Melbourne will go without safe and secure housing. They are either couch surfing with family and friends, living in registered boarding houses or sleeping rough on the street. Across Australia nearly one in every 200 Australians is homeless. One in every 154 Australians sought help from a homelessness assistance service and one in every 39 children aged under four slept in a homelessness service. Twenty-three per cent of Australia's homeless are children. These are shameful statistics.
Today I would like to pay tribute to and thank the people in Melbourne who work hard to, literally, make beds for those without. Each of these services tackles homelessness from different angles. Ozanam House, as well as providing crisis accommodation and referral services, has recently developed a homelessness action group in conjunction with community members to better inform the community about homelessness. They have produced a guide for community members to assist people they may find in north or west Melbourne sleeping rough. The guide tells people who they can call, what services they can refer people to and how they can help someone without secure housing. Many members would be familiar with the work of Bryan Lipmann, who has provided services at Wintringham—not for homeless older people but for older people who are homeless, a critical distinction that has enabled him to establish a successful model for the provision of care to older people.
Urban Seeds is a great community enterprise in the CBD. I was privileged to join a dinner with a number of fellow Melburnians, cooked by the volunteers and members of Urban Seeds. Their motto, 'Strangers are fiction', asks us all to remember that people are always only one conversation away from each other.
Finally, Urban Communities has transformed the way affordable housing is offered to people in Kensington through a new model of management. Internationally, our public housing models are outdated. Urban Communities has provided one alternative and, in doing so, has provided affordable housing to women at risk of homelessness resulting from domestic violence and men at risk of homelessness from mental illness. I will be here in Canberra and not able to join the CEOs and the foreign minister this evening as they do their bit for homelessness in Melbourne.
I would again like to thank the people who tirelessly offer services to Melbourne's homeless. Housing stress has increased in the last decade. In Melbourne, 52 per cent of people rent their homes as private rentals swell above 30 per cent of people's family income. Waiting lists for social housing continue to grow and, despite the injection of funding for social housing in Melbourne, we are seeing land tagged for private development rather than affordable housing. This is something that I and all the members of the various community groups I have mentioned in Melbourne are working hard to address.
I wish to speak today on the issue of renewable energy. This is an issue where there has been considerable debate, and I truly believe there is bipartisan agreement on the benefits of renewable energy, even though some members in this chamber do not necessarily acknowledge the existence of climate change.
Our Pacific region is well placed to take advantage of increased renewable technology. I am aware that a lot of collaborative effort is going on between Australian and Pacific companies in rolling out renewable energy technologies. In particular, I acknowledge that the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, REEEP, is working with some of our Pacific partners, such as Tonga, and development agencies to encourage private sector investment in renewable energy technology.
Australia is a strong member of the Pacific community and contributes more resources than other partners in terms of developing technologies in that space. Anything we can do to assist our partners in increasing the renewable energy consumption should be encouraged. A good example of the work of REEEP is the Tongan Energy Road Map, which promotes a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2020, which is a great economic outcome for a country that is so petroleum dependent. Renewable energy investment is often characterised as a luxury item for First World economies, but in fact it is one of the foundations of development. Clean and affordable energy is the key to long-term poverty reduction, with sustainable energy offering developing societies the opportunity to improve their standards of living, take control of their future and enjoy the choices and opportunities afforded to those with access to reliable power.
In some Pacific nations, 70 per cent of people do not have access to energy, though their nations spend up to 60 per cent of their export earnings on fossil fuel imports. With rising oil prices and global recession, if they reduce their dependency on fossil fuels it will certainly make them better off for the future. Countries developing now have the advantage of doing so with greater awareness of sustainable development and have the opportunity to do so by learning from the environmental mistakes of the more developed nations. This is an issue that I have raised in the parliament with the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and it is one that I will continue to closely follow.
The undertakings of organisations such as REEEP are to be encouraged, and I wish them well in their future endeavours in the Pacific region.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Consideration in detail resumed.
I move:
That the order for consideration of the proposed expenditures agreed to on Tuesday, 2 June 2011 by the Main Committee be varied by considering the proposed expenditure for the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio after the Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio.
Question agreed to.
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $2,157,267,000
Minister, it was confirmed at estimates that the industry department is doing a range of work on carbon tax and its impact on industry. In that context can you confirm the carbon tax will only be applied to fewer than 1,000 emitters? Can you guarantee it will not be applied to other businesses or other industries? On what basis is the government providing 52 per cent compensation to households and 46 per cent to industry under the carbon tax? Given that the CPRS as it started was supposed to provide only around 41 per cent to households, how much of a decline in compensation from that scheme would a level of 46 per cent represent for Australian industry? Isn't this just purely a front for an exercise in wealth redistribution? What detail can you provide industry about the proportion by which the tax will rise and what the level of compensation change will be beyond year 1? Has the government set a ceiling price beyond which the carbon tax will not escalate? If so, what is that?
Could you also please inform the House if either of these two statements is wrong. The first one is that every dollar that is raised by the payment of a carbon price by the companies that are emitting large amounts of pollution will be used towards supporting households. The second comment is that the carbon plan which we are now developing will involve additional support for manufacturing. Has the government requested briefings from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research or any other government agency about the steel industry's legal action against the EU in that jurisdiction over the implementation of its ETS? If so, which agencies and on what dates? Has any consideration being given to the implications for Australia? If so, what are these implications?
What consultation and work has the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and the government more generally done on border tariff arrangements for the carbon tax? Are there any considerations for the introduction of border tariffs or any like actions with regard to the introduction of a carbon tax?
I thank the member for her questions. On the question of a carbon tax generally, the government has been very clear about the process which is now underway to determine the most appropriate way of pricing carbon in the Australian economy. The member will be aware that there is a climate change committee that is involved in consultation and discussion with the government and that the government will bring forward that proposal once the processes for consultation have been concluded. The member will also be aware that there has been significant consultation with industry, and that has been the hallmark of the government's approach to delivering a price on carbon. Those consultations are varied and diverse but I can assure the member that consultation with industry has always been and will remain one of the important principles that this government follows in relation to a reform of this kind. I will refer now to a couple of the specific questions that the member put to me, which I will take on notice. The questions relate to whether or not there has been any research, consultation or interaction on the question of border tariffs. I might have slightly paraphrased the question that was put to me by the member, but it is on the record. We will take that particular question on notice. Again, I think it is appropriate to take on notice the question of whether or not there have been any briefings or advices sought in relation to legal action being taken in respect of the steel industry and issues around them more generally.
On the question of whether or not the government has come to a view about a ceiling price for the carbon tax, again, I refer the member to both my earlier comments in answer to her question and also to the comments made by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, by the Prime Minister, by the Treasurer and by others on numerous occasions, including in question time, pointing out the processes that are underway and the principles that underpin the government's approach on climate change.
I will make one observation to conclude this answer, and it is simply this: many businesses agree that a price on carbon is the most efficient way to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most climate scientists are unanimous in agreeing that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in order to stabilise the climate so that we do not suffer the expensive impacts of dangerous climate change. The long-term sustainable prosperity of our nation, including in respect of our industrial base, our innovation, our research, our development of new technologies and industries and the like, is very much linked to our capacity to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the most cost-effective way for us to do that is to have a price on carbon. Economists are of a single view about that. Members of the party of the member opposite are of a single view about that. And, in order to have a price on carbon introduced into the Australian economy we need to agree on the way in which that particular scheme will be brought forward.
I am very confident that the process of consultation and negotiation that is underway, not only with industry but with all of the other players in this substantial reform, is being conducted in a way that enables the government to have a clear view about the most effective way for us to introduce this important reform. For those of us who are genuinely interested in innovation and genuinely interested in building a low-carbon economy, the introduction of a carbon price is a much needed element.
It is my pleasure to firstly congratulate the government and particularly the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr—and I understand that the minister here is representing Senator Kim Carr today in relation to questions on his portfolio—on what the government has been doing to support businesses and enterprises across this country, including in my electorate. I also congratulate the government on acknowledging the importance of supporting industry innovation and on the range of programs that this government has implemented, not just in this budget but in previous budgets, to support innovation and R&D to help businesses build their enterprises and expand, hopefully, into exports as well.
One of those programs is the $34.4 million Buy Australian at Home and Abroad initiative, which was recently announced. This is the one I would particularly like the minister to address. It is great that the government acknowledges that some suppliers are missing out because of established global vendor lists and the trend towards pre-assembled modules. Having said that, major resources projects provide significant opportunities for Australian suppliers, and it is my understanding that that is what this initiative is about—taking advantage of those significant opportunities that will be before Australian suppliers and helping them to grow. Minister, perhaps you could advise the House how the $34.4 million Buy Australian at Home and Abroad program is going to provide that support and assist those businesses to take up those opportunities and deal with those many challenges that face them. I understand that will include new Enterprise Connect business advisors. I know the new Enterprise Connect business advisors that are operating around the country have been working very well already. If I understand correctly, that will be expanded through this program. I am interested in hearing some more about that and how it will help suppliers across the country.
I thank the member for that question. It goes to the heart of this government's commitment to make sure that we have long-term opportunities for Australian businesses to continue to build their business both here and abroad. Certainly it is the case, as the member reflects, that the major resources projects do offer significant opportunities for Australian suppliers, but it is also the case that some are missing out. The budget commitment, which I think is an extremely important one, of some $34.4 million over the next four years will ensure that these Australian suppliers directly benefit from the growth we are seeing in the resources sector, particularly by more effectively linking the suppliers with the project opportunities that are out there and enhancing industry capabilities as well.
The fact is that the viability of Australian manufacturing depends not only on its ability to integrate into global supply chains but also on its ability to improve productivity and to innovate. That is at the heart of the challenge for our manufacturing, so facilitating access to supply chains and enhancing industry capability is extremely important for this government.
I am very pleased to inform the member that the government will invest $27.6 million over four years for Supplier Advocates and Enterprise Connect to enable them to work with Australian firms, identify opportunities and secure those opportunities. I have had some experience with Enterprise Connect already. I think it is one of the most outstanding and visionary initiatives of this government, and it is one that I know industry itself has been particularly pleased to see delivered.
The new Supplier Advocates will be deployed in the resources sector. That is where we are seeing such an increased tempo of economic activity now. They will be able to identify and lead practical industry development projects like supply chain improvement programs, risk management training and the like. It is intended that they be respected industry representatives and that they will provide leadership to address some of the issues and some of the barriers that we know are out there and are faced by industry. It is important to recognise that the Australian Made Campaign Ltd supply chain advisor will also be appointed. This is an opportunity to provide linkages and collaboration between Australian companies and Australian Made Campaign Ltd itself.
I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House that a Resources Sector Supplier Advisory Forum will also enable the bringing together of major resource companies, Australian suppliers and, importantly, unions to make sure that they identify the opportunities and the potential barriers to Australian industry participation in major resources projects. The key thing here is to have a thorough, comprehensive, targeted and focused effort to ensure that Australian businesses can take up the opportunities that are presented by the significant resources boom we are seeing take place right around the country, particularly in states such as Western Australia and in the Northern Territory. I conclude by saying that I think the minister has taken absolutely the right steps in recognising the challenges that Australian manufacturing and industry face, identifying that there are significant opportunities, given the increasing activity in the minerals sector, and enabling people to work cooperatively together to deliver those kinds of solutions to make sure that Australian manufacturing can continue to prosper.
Minister, what has been achieved in practical terms by the Food Processing Industry Strategy Group? Is the modelling of the Australian Food and Grocery Council right when it says that food and grocery prices should be expected to rise by between three and five per cent under the proposed carbon tax? Is Citigroup right when it says a carbon tax will impact on the profitability of supermarket retailers by between two and four per cent? If not, why are these figures refuted? Has the minister or anyone from the department met with the Australian Food and Grocery Council to consult on the impact on food and groceries of a carbon tax? Have either you or Minister Carr seen or asked for any Treasury modelling of the impact on food and groceries?
Regarding Commercialisation Australia: do you accept as correct the evidence given to us at estimates by officers of Commercialisation Australia that collectively 137 staff and case managers have been employed as part of the program during the two years of its life, yet if you add together the grants made in those two years you will see that there have been just 116 of them—in other words, this program effectively employs more staff than there are grants?
Regarding science education programs and the internationalisation of science: how much more money in this year's budget did the Primary Connections and Science by Doing science education programs, respectively, need in order to achieve their aims? How much was sought by the Academy of Science, and what advice was provided to the government about how much extra funding would be required in order to make the programs fully self-sustaining? Given the funding has been completely scrapped, is it the government's assessment that these programs were not effective? On what basis was the International Science Linkages program abolished in the budget? Has the department or the minister's office received representations from embassies and/or high commissions in Canberra in relation to the termination of the program? If so, can you be more specific about how many and what representations have been conveyed to the government or any department about the decision?
The budget papers further indicate that the department is going to be employing 96 more staff over the next year. Can you please provide details and explain where in the department and in what capacity those extra staff will be employed? What is the progress of the implementation of the Inspiring Australia program? What has been put in place in practical terms so far?
Regarding the R&D tax credit: when the Greens signalled their agreement to the government's R&D tax credit legislation, this week, they said it would address the alleged problem of a small number of companies taking a large share of the total funding. But wouldn't you agree that the rules are such that any company's eligibility for the concession makes absolutely no difference to anyone else's and that it is in fact an entitlement scheme, rather than a competitive scheme? Why has there been so little public consultation on the government's new laws, when will the opposition be able to see the new wording in the bill and why have the crucial feedstock provisions in the bill never been the subject of public consultation of any kind? Why hasn't Treasury modelling of the changes been released? Will you make a commitment to the House that this modelling will now be made available, more than two years after the government first announced its plans in relation to this legislation? Now that the government has said it is supportive of the idea of making quarterly cash payments to some of the recipients, can you clarify why?
If it is such a good change, why isn't it being introduced until 2014? And no matter when it is introduced, doesn't the whole nature of how these kinds of tax arrangements work mean that a structural change like that will inevitably create all sorts of logistical and administrative problems in its practical operation?
The member has asked a series of questions. I am not sure that I got each and every single one noted down, but certainly those questions that I do not address directly here I will take on notice, as is the appropriate process in this consideration in detail.
In relation to a question that the member has asked around the Food and Grocery Council and a set of figures that she has referred to from Citigroup, I will take that particular question on notice, as I represent the minister, as I will the questions she raised about whether or not there has been any Treasury modelling done in relation to that question that she asked. I have seen some of the commentary from the Food and Grocery Council. We recognise that, like other major stakeholder groups, they play a legitimate role in putting a view into the debate around the price on carbon and other related issues. However, we are particularly mindful that the high Australian dollar and the higher input costs do produce some pressures on the food processing industry.
One of the most important things that we as a government can do is to assist in innovation, to develop an innovation strategy. I note that the minister has announced the establishment of a food processing industry strategy group, and also of a food industry support network, operating through Enterprise Connect, to enhance business development and innovation services provided to the sector. This is clearly something which the government is addressing and is mindful of, and the government does intend to consult key stakeholder groups during coming months in relation to those issues—not only on those issues that the government knows are important to the Food and Grocery Council and the food industry generally, but also more generally, in relation to making sure that our industries have the best opportunity they can to respond to the challenges they face.
The member has asked me questions in relation to Commercialisation Australia. I will take those questions on notice. In relation to the questions that the member has asked me about the R&D tax credit, I make the point to the member opposite that the purpose of the R&D tax credit is to replace the existing R&D tax concessions, which was strongly recommended by the review, as the member would know, of the National Innovation System. This is an important review, it is long overdue, and we are committed to delivering it. The government has made clear that the new R&D tax credit is to focus assistance on activities that are likely to deliver economy-wide benefits—that is the key here—that would not be enjoyed otherwise in the absence of public support. This will mean that there is an extension of government support for genuine research and development, encouraging many more Australian companies, especially smaller firms, to invest in research and development. Again the member has asked questions in relation to Treasury modelling, and again those questions specifically will be taken on notice. I would make the point that the new R&D tax credit is not a cost-saving measure. Eligibility criteria have been rationalised, yes, but the key intent of this tax incentive is to improve Australia's innovation and productivity performance, and that happens by us having the opportunity to deliver something which will support genuine research and development. It is intended to assist genuine research and development activities, and it does not discriminate against any industry sectors. I commend the minister for his very good work in this area.
I wish to ask the minister questions relating to the funding for innovation in Australia. It is an issue that is particularly important for my electorate of Fraser. People often think of the ACT as being fundamentally a government town. I think of it as being an innovation town, a place where new ideas are generated in public policy but also in our educational institutions. There is the Australian National University, which is producing ideas across the gamut from the public policy centres of the HC Coombs Policy Forum to the Crawford School of Economics and Government and the excellent research being done on China and South-East Asia, as well as by my former colleagues in the Research School of Economics. There is also a variety of cutting-edge physical science research being done at the Australian National University.
I have visited some of the research facilities, including the solar thermal dish, which you can see as you drive along Parkes Way towards the city, and there is also the research being done at ANU looking at different ways of generating solar cells—ways of ensuring that solar cells are produced as cheaply as possible, which of course has big gains for Australia. The cheaper that we can make our solar cells, the quicker that we are able to move to renewable technologies. A price on carbon is going to substantially drive that innovation. I know that you, Minister, representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, will be able to tell me something about some of the research that is being subsidised by the government, investment which will lead to more clean tech opportunities for Australia.
Minister, I would also like you to provide us with some information on the square kilometre array. I know that yesterday Senator Carr met a group of primary school students on the Parliament House lawns. The square kilometre array bid is already inspiring and engaging young Australians with science and innovation. Minister, are you able to tell us how the square kilometre array funding will help secure other projects for Australia? I know that these sorts of projects can often have spillovers, much as we know has happened in many of the ideas hubs in the world. Silicon Valley spills out of Stanford, and the Boston Route 128 tech corridor spills out of Harvard and MIT. I would appreciate some insights from you as to how the government expects that some of this new investment around the square kilometre array will lead to more innovation in Australia. Of course, to the extent that that is located in the national capital, that will be a great pride to me.
The University of Canberra has a range of different research centres doing really important, cutting-edge work around the health sciences, in public policy and in the physical sciences themselves. The Australian Catholic University and UNSW@ADFA are also fine research institutions in the Fraser electorate doing really critical work which will improve living standards for future Australians as well as providing jobs in those high-tech industries. Good jobs of the future are being assisted through these science research institutions.
And of course we have Questacon now providing science education to so many young Australians. It will soon be using the National Broadband Network to allow Australian children who are not able to come to Canberra to access many of the good ideas available at Questacon. Questacon is an institution in the ACT that does the nation enormously proud. The work being done at Questacon complements the scientific research at Australia's key universities, many of which are located here in the ACT.
I thank the member for his question. He would well know, as is clear from the content of his question, how crucial innovation is not only to this government but also to the electorate that he represents and to this city in which the parliament is located. It is the case that we have a number of outstanding research institutions here, operating through the two universities, the University of Canberra and the ANU, but we also have a significant CSIRO presence. I too am a great fan of Questacon. I think it provides immeasurable benefits, not only in its research but in its communication and education functions, which are very highly developed and which many young Australians benefit from.
The fact is that the government's spending on science and innovation increased by around 43 per cent from 2007-08 to 2011-12. The government recognises that innovation is the key to making Australia more productive and competitive. All of the big challenges that we have ahead of us, but particularly climate change, social disadvantage and health problems, can be better managed if we have a strong innovation drive coming through our industries and our economy. We have introduced a number of important and crucial initiatives. I referred to one of them in my previous answer to a question from the member opposite—the new research and development tax credit. There is also Commercialisation Australia, the Super Science Initiative and further support for the venture capital industry. There are new initiatives including Inspiring Australia and Clean 21.
The budget has a number of important measures that the government decided to provide specific support for in science, industry and research. There is support for the bid to host the square kilometre array radiotelescope with New Zealand. The member has asked me a question about that and I will return to that in a moment. There is the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad measure. There is support for the implementation of the National Construction Code—a great opportunity for innovation in the built environment, where we know that there is so much leakage of greenhouse gas emissions. There is also Science for Australia's Future. In particular, there is funding for ANSTO to allow it to continue to decommission obsolete facilities, facilities which have reached the end of their useful life. We are proud of the commitment that we have made to innovation. We are providing considerable support.
We are very excited in particular about the SKA project, which the member referred to earlier on. What tremendous benefits there would be here. We would have the biggest telescope in the world in our backyard. What a coup this would be for Australia as a driver of innovation and science in this country. We think that this project has the potential to bring substantial economic benefits to regional communities, to Indigenous people. It will bring high-skilled jobs, major construction, significant operation contracts, technology transfer, and innovation and technology focused support industries. All of these mean that Australia can be the location of the world's largest, fastest and most sophisticated data processing and transport network. I think this is a project that we are going to hear a great deal more about, not only in the parliament but more widely afield. The funding we have put in place means that we can make a competitive bid to host this project and really take our place as a major partner in one of the most significant scientific endeavours of the 21st century. What do we see as a government and what does the minister identify as absolutely critical in terms of potential benefits? Clearly it is technology spin-off and commercialisation opportunities, as valuable potentially as the globally used Wi-Fi technology already developed by CSIRO and technology that emerged from radioastronomy research. What a tremendous example for us that can tell us where the square kilometre array project might take us. We think the opportunities here are really significant, and I am absolutely pleased that the government has been able to provide the funding to support a competitive bid for a project of this scope and possibility.
The government has paid out $149 million under the Green Car Innovation Fund for a project with the Holden Cruze. Can you confirm the car will have all its engines imported, two from South Korea and one from Austria, and that it will also have all its gearboxes made overseas and probably its on-board computers and many other components too? Given that it received $35 million under the fund, can you inform the House which parts of the hybrid Camry are Australian made and what the figure is for the proportion of locally and overseas made components for the car? Given that it received $40 million under the fund, can you inform the House which parts of the green Commodore are Australian made and what stipulations the government has made to ensure there will be a high percentage of Australian components in the car? Isn't it correct that the Euro 6 emission targets announced by Minister Albanese on Saturday are unachievable unless there are radical changes to Australian fuel quality and standards and that no Australian refinery will actually be able to make the necessary changes without enormous ramifications for their operations?
On a further matter regarding car industry policy, what is the government's response to the series of revelations in recent days about the serial rorting of the luxury car tax rules? Do you agree there has been sustained tax evasion occurring? If not, on what basis do you reject those conclusions? If you are unsure about this particular information, what action is the government taking on this issue and what advice has it sought?
Regarding the cooperative research centres, the government has now slashed funding for CRCs by another $33.4 million. In the wake of these cuts I have got statements that inform us that CRCs have been instrumental in promoting public-private research partnerships, and others opposed to cuts say that funding should be improved to ensure CRCs deliver the best possible outcomes for researchers, industry and the entire Australian community. Are those sentiments correct and appropriate? Why has the government chosen to slash funding for CRCs, and aren't people who are arguing that these cuts are ill-considered absolutely right?
I thank the member for her question. In relation to the specific questions she has asked about the relative proportion of imported parts within those cars identified as receiving support from the Green Car Innovation Fund and the question she asked additionally about the Camry and the green Commodore, I will take those questions on notice. I would make one basic point, though. This government has provided support because it knows that across all levels of our economy, including across automotive industries, we need to get on a path to a more sustainable future and motor vehicles have their role to play just as a number of other industries do in being able to take an innovative and a purposeful approach to actually reducing emissions over time. This is something which was not contemplated in any significant way by the coalition when they had those opportunities. The fact is that we do have a suite of measures in place to foster innovation across all industry sectors. We are specifically committed to the long-term future of these industries and the minister is particularly aware, as is the government, that there are significant competitive pressures that face the Australian manufacturing sector. We have put in place a range of measures to make sure that we can provide appropriate assistance to enable these industries to be globally competitive. What is A New Car Plan for a Greener Future, with a $5 billion commitment in it, if it is not evidence of this government's commitment to supporting innovation in the automotive industry? I cannot think of any other statistic that can provide that opportunity. In particular, there is the $3.4 billion Automotive Transformation Scheme to reward research, development and investment in technologies that will, as the name suggests, help transform the industry.
The fact is that the Green Car Innovation Fund made around half a billion dollars available to the industry and has leveraged around $2 billion in total investment and assisted the local industry to weather the kinds of storms that they have faced in the global financial crisis. I think there are significant achievements here: helping Toyota secure the investment for the locally produced hybrid Camry—what a significant achievement for the minister and for the government. This is a motor vehicle that we will increasingly see on our roads—a motor vehicle that is more efficient. Other achievements include enabling GM to invest in the local production of the Holden Cruze and assisting Ford towards introducing the fuel-efficient EcoBoost engine for the Falcon. These are extremely important supports and they are ones that are going to pay significant dividends for both consumers and the country as a whole in the future.
The member has asked me to make comment about reported—I think she used this expression—'rorting' of the luxury car tax. I will take that question on notice as well. What I would say is that we totally understand how important it is to provide appropriately targeted support in innovation, in supporting industry and in building sustainability across the manufacturing sector. The fact is that the member opposite and her leader have plans to make massive cuts to industry programs. They want to take half a billion dollars away from the Automotive Transformation Scheme that I have just referred to, a scheme that provides important co-investment in research and development and increases the competitiveness opportunities for the automotive industry, an industry we have consistently and strongly supported and will continue to do so. (Time expired)
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $2,238,371,000
I ask the minister: if an age pensioner receives a one-off payment of $390.97 for assisting the Australian Electoral Commission on election day and notifies Centrelink of the payment, assuming they otherwise receive no form of income other than the pension, apart from this payment, how will their pension rate change?
I thank the member for Menzies for his question. I will get the specifics worked out for him but I am very pleased to be able to inform the Committee that the legislation for the new Work Bonus went through the Senate yesterday. The government is very pleased that it is able to offer age pensioners more support—certainly more support than ever even dreamt of by the previous, Howard government. In addition to the new work bonus that will enable age pensioners who want to get some employment income to keep more of that income, this government delivered the most significant increases to the pension in the last 100 years and introduced a new form of indexation to ensure that the pension keeps up with the cost of living for older Australians who rely on it. These changes were never introduced by the previous, Liberal government. The value of the pension did not reflect the increases in the cost of living that pensioners faced. It was up to this government to introduce a new cost-of-living index for pensioners. That now applies and has resulted in the delivery of higher increases to the pension through indexation. It was also this government that improved the wage cost index relationship for the pension, which once again is something that is benefiting pensioners. I am very pleased that the new work bonus has proceeded through the parliament. We made a commitment to it in the election campaign and it will be delivered from 1 July—in a couple of weeks time. I will get the specifics worked out for the member for Menzies.
While I am on my feet, I would like to highlight some of the other major initiatives in this budget for families, seniors, people with disabilities and their carers, people with mental health issues and very vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians. This budget really does deliver very significantly for all of those groups. In addition to the new work bonus passing through the parliament yesterday, I am very pleased to inform the Committee that legislation fulfilling our commitment to parents with older teenagers has passed through the parliament. For teenagers and parents of teenagers this too is a very, very significant improvement. One of the very important changes that we have tied to the increase in family payments for teenagers is the requirement that those teenagers must be in school or equivalent vocational education. It has passed through the parliament and is funded in this budget. It is, once again, an election commitment that the government made and has carried out. It is one that we are very proud of.
The bill that passed yesterday brought into force another election commitment that will benefit families, and that is improved and more generous advances. We know that, especially for those families who are doing it very tough and find it difficult to manage their finances fortnight to fortnight, there are occasions when families need extra money. It might be due to the fridge or the car breaking down. These advances can certainly be very important for those families, so I am very pleased that the legislation passed through the parliament yesterday—another election commitment delivered by this government.
Firstly, I would like to congratulate the minister on all the fine work she has done in her portfolio area. She has always delivered and has never lost sight of the objective of her portfolio. I do not think there is a person in Australia who could fault her performance. It shows that she is a person with longstanding experience in this area and really understands her portfolio and is totally committed to it.
I have a question for the minister about community mental health. But, before I ask it, I would like to emphasise just how important investment in community mental health is. Currently the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing is conducting an inquiry into youth suicide, and we intend to table that report prior to the end of this session. That inquiry has discovered how important the availability of community mental health services is and the fact that, if they are available, they can really help young people. Headstart is one of the programs that have benefited many young people.
In a previous life I worked in helping people with a mental illness live independently in the community, develop the life skills they needed and then move into employment. Unless you have the services on the ground, a person is not able to maintain their lifestyle or maintain living in the community, which leads to constant hospitalisation, homelessness and being interred in correctional facilities. It demonstrates just how important it is to have the right sort of community mental health services to maintain people living in the community when they have some form of mental illness and also lead them back to health.
Given the background I have just given, I ask that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs provide details of the government's investment in community mental health programs.
I thank the member for Shortland for her kind remarks. As I am sure all members are aware, the issue of mental health was a significant one for the government in this budget. There were many initiatives, some in the health portfolio, which I will not touch on today, and some in this portfolio. As the member for Shortland rightly indicates, it is very important that we provide support for people with mental illness living in the community so that they can continue to live in the community and get the sort of support they need.
I was very pleased to be able to go to Bendigo just after the budget with the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing to see the excellent work being done at St Luke's and to talk to people who live in the community with mental illness who depend on the local service provided by St Luke's. We are very pleased to be able to extend that type of service, so there will be an extra $154 million over the next five years for community organisations to employ an extra 425 additional personal helpers and mentors. The job they do is to provide one-on-one support, and that is why I think the words 'personal helpers and mentors' are appropriate, because they indicate that personal support is so critical.
Also included in the budget initiatives is $201.3 million over five years, which will be provided by incentives to the states to increase investment in two areas that we know are very important for people with mental illness who are living in the community. One is to make sure that there is adequate support for those who have housing difficulties—to provide housing and accommodation support—and the other is to make sure that some of that money is used in emergency departments. I think we would all be aware—and I would say this is true right across the parliament—of the pressure on emergency departments and the desire to make sure that people who present with mental illness to emergency departments are properly cared for and that their way through both the hospital system and the out-of-hospital environment is well managed. That is what this money is aimed at doing. We do know how important it will be to make sure that, where possible, people with mental illness are able to get work. So $50 million will be allocated to the Personal Helpers and Mentors Program to help people with mental illness get back to work. I was pleased to see people at St Luke's in Bendigo doing exactly that, with the support of Disability Employment Services. In previous budgets we have extended the availability of support through Disability Employment Services.
We are also providing additional funding—$54.3 million—for extra mental health respite services. I have met some of the older parents of adult offspring with serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, and they certainly need support. The carers need support—they need some respite—so we are very pleased to be able to provide that support.
The other area that is funded in the health portfolio but that is pertinent here is the support we are providing to bring all this together to make sure that care is coordinated, both in the community and across community mental health services and the health sector. I am sure that that too will make a big difference to both the individuals with mental illness and their carers.
When the minister comes back with details on the question I asked earlier, perhaps she could also indicate whether the example I gave is covered by the work bonus and, if it is not covered by the work bonus, whether she has plans to rectify that situation. Secondly, can I ask about income management. Who selected the income management trial areas that were announced in the budget? What criteria were used for the selection of those areas? Was there any community consultation involved in making the selection? Finally, I note that the member for Wakefield has been very vocal in calling for income management in his electorate. Why was his electorate not selected as a trial site?
Perhaps I could just correct the last remark of the member for Menzies. It is correct that the member for Wakefield has been very vocal and very supportive of income management, and his electorate does cover the local government area of Playford. The member for Menzies might like to read many of the public comments that have been made by the member for Wakefield that have welcomed the introduction of income management into his electorate. I am not quite sure where the member for Menzies is getting his information. Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, you would also be aware that we have been very pleased to support the extension of income management into Rockhampton. Like the member for Wakefield, you have been a very strong advocate for income management, understanding the very significant benefits it has for individuals and families to better manage their money.
We of course took advice both from my department and from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, which are the two main areas. We are concerned about the very high levels of unemployment in certain parts of Australia. We looked at the differences in unemployment rates and we looked at the numbers of people on income support in those different areas. If the member for Menzies would like information about some of those numbers, of course we are happy to share them with him. Those areas are now going to have the opportunity of income management. That is how I see it. From the comments that have been generally made by the opposition, I was under the impression that the opposition supported the approach that it will be of benefit to individuals and families to help them better manage their money. Regarding the way we are going to introduce income management into the five areas, where child protection authorities recommend to Centrelink that a family—and particularly a child—would benefit from income management, Centrelink will be able to manage up to 70 per cent of their welfare payments. When Centrelink decides that an individual is vulnerable, Centrelink will be able to introduce income management. What we have found in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory is that there is great value in introducing voluntary income management, and that too will be done in each of the five locations. I am happy to talk further with the member for Menzies about the sorts of numbers that demonstrate why we have these areas, including things like very high long-term unemployment, which of course is a primary driver of our concern.
On the question of the work bonus, obviously we will look at the issue first. I will respond to the second part of the question once I have looked at the first.
In my electorate, Wesley Mission Homelessness and Support Centre at Ringwood will receive about $300,000 over the next three years for the continuation of emergency relief funding. That will make a great difference to local residents. I have visited Wesley on many occasions. I, along with the parliamentary secretary, was there recently to talk to them. The services they provide to local constituents are quite wide ranging. In particular, they provide food and petrol vouchers, clothing and emergency housing for people in crisis. The outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne have particular pockets of people with low income or very little income at all and many of them end up at services such as Wesley. It is not only Ringwood; an area in Croydon has similar issues. Many people end up going through one service or another, but without that type of support they end up literally on the streets.
The issue that has been run in the local press, particularly in the Maroondah Leader, over many years is about the crisis where people without enough income cannot find housing in the area and are able to receive support from an organisation such as Wesley. It is a vital support in the outer eastern suburbs. Wesley is not the only service providing this. The Salvation Army in Ringwood received funding and the North Ringwood Uniting Church received funding in the same measure. Both of those organisations service a similar demographic in a quite similar area and many of their clients cross over from one to another.
The question I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary is: could you give an update on how much emergency relief funding will be received by service providers right across Australia? I know how much is happening in my own little area, but I would like to get a bigger picture so that I can take that story back and show people that it is not just recognition of the problem; we are actually dealing with it right across the country.
I thank the member for Deakin for his question. It was indeed a pleasure to be with the member for Deakin at services in his area just a week or so ago. We saw the support being provided to vulnerable families at a time of crisis when they visit the centres. In the budget we saw significant financial support through emergency relief for vulnerable Australians. In fact, there is $171.9 million for frontline community organisations for financial management programs. There are the big providers, such as the Salvation Army, Anglicare, St Vincent de Paul and others, right down to community houses that provide some emergency relief. Certainly, when it comes to emergency relief, a whole range of organisations across the country are providing it. In this budget we have added an extra $83.3 million over four years for emergency relief. That includes $4 million also for Foodbank Australia, which is $1 million each year for the next four years. So there are a whole range of measures in that emergency relief that we are supporting vulnerable Australians with. This measure is after the GFC top-up. In the two previous years, as a global financial crisis measure, we boosted funding for emergency relief during the global financial crisis. As the minister and I went around the country talking to providers, it became very obvious that the need was still there in the local communities, and we had lobbying from members such as the member for Deakin—and I notice that the member for Blair is here also—who were saying that the need was still very high in their local communities and asking what was happening with emergency relief. The end of the global financial crisis funding was 30 June, and organisations were expecting funding to go back to pre-GFC levels. In this budget we have been able to achieve ongoing secure funding of the base funding. It is a significant increase on the base funding. It is in fact the largest increase to the base funding of emergency relief since the program began in 1977.
This additional money will support an additional 500,000 vulnerable Australians and vulnerable families at a time of crisis. Last financial year, with the global financial crisis additional top-up, more than one million Australians were assisted at emergency relief outlets right around the country. I have had the privilege to travel and visit many of these outlets around the country in my role as parliamentary secretary. As I said, whether it be from the larger providers or from the local community providers, it is certainly a much-needed service in our local communities. You get families turning up for whatever reason—they have had a car breakdown or they have had an unexpected bill—who need some additional one-off support. Also, some of the emergency relief providers now, with the flexibility that we have provided them, are putting on case management workers who, on repeat visits with clients, are sitting down with them and asking, 'Is there something else we can help you with?' and then referring them on to other services for their financial literacy skills or their financial support. That might be through low-interest loans, which the government is also supporting with an additional $60 million in the budget, also over four years, through the Good Shepherd organisation or the Brotherhood of St Laurence.
We have put together a range of measures, a whole suite of them, to support these families. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs just referred to one of them in terms of the bill that has gone through the House, with more flexibility in the family tax benefit for people. There are a range of measures for these vulnerable families at a time of crisis. The government is providing that support so that they can get a hand up to get on with their lives and support their families and their children.
I refer the minister to her answer about the electorate of Wakefield. Can she confirm that it is only part of the electorate of Wakefield which is covered by the trial? I think she referred to the City of Playford. Maybe she can tell us what proportion of that electorate is covered by the trial.
Secondly, I refer her to the evidence in the recent Senate estimates that the government had received advice as early as January 2010 about the freezing of family benefits. I ask: why did the government choose to conceal the fact that they would perpetrate this hit against two million Australian families until after the election? And, in the context of that advice not having been made public until recently, can the minister indicate what other policy proposals are currently being or have been costed by her department? Given the change that is occurring on 1 July in relation to the Senate, I include: is the government costing any policy proposals from the Greens?
Just because the member for Menzies got the issue of Wakefield wrong does not mean that he can try and have another go. The City of Playford is in the electorate of Wakefield. It is part of the electorate of Wakefield. All of the five areas are local government areas.
On the other question of the pauses to family tax benefits, of course the member for Menzies is well aware of the answer to this question because the opposition had a go at this in estimates, so I do not have anything further to say other than what was said by my officials in estimates. I remind the member for Menzies of the opposition's support for this measure when it was introduced in 2009. The government first paused the upper income limits on family tax benefits and the baby bonus in 2009 with the opposition's support. It is the case that we are proposing to extend that limit pause by another two years. The critical thing that I want to remind the member for Menzies of, if he needs a reminder, is that the responsible shadow minister at the time, Mr Abbott, now the Leader of the Opposition, said that he considered that these pauses were—to quote him—'too soft'. Two years ago the now Leader of the Opposition said that these pauses were 'too soft'. The opposition supported them two years ago, and I hope that, in the interests of making sure our family payment system is sustainable, the opposition will support them again. These measures are important for the sustainability of the family payment system, and that is why we are introducing them in this budget.
The member for Deakin asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services questions relating to emergency relief funding. I am more interested in how it affects the flood and other disaster affected areas in Queensland in particular and nationally. I am also interested in the Commonwealth Financial Counselling service, which I have spoken to the minister and the parliamentary secretary about previously. I want to put on the record my appreciation to both of them for their availability and their preparedness to take my incessant phone calls during the flood disaster in south-east Queensland. It affected my electorate—I see the member for Wright; I used to represent the Lockyer Valley, so I know what he has been through in the past few months. I represent most of the city of Ipswich and all the Somerset region, covering the Brisbane Valley, which has been really badly affected, so the emergency relief funding and the Financial Counselling assistance have been greatly appreciated.
I also thank the parliamentary secretary for coming to my electorate of Blair twice in the past few months. The first occasion was 1 February, when we visited Spiritus Kinections and Anglicare. They are doing great work in supporting people, particularly around Riverview as well as the Ipswich CBD, with a number of Commonwealth and state funded programs to help families suffering from anxiety, separation, mental health and other issues. Having a good conversation with the providers there was useful.
I also want to thank the parliamentary secretary for going to Riverview Neighbourhood House. They are an organisation that received emergency funding. I note they also received funding in the budget of $71,530. Kerry Silver and Christine McDonald, the coordinator there, were also present. They did a fantastic job during the flood. They fed hundreds of people, and there were literally about 100 people sleeping at Riverview Neighbourhood House. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for being there.
But I want to focus mainly on the Commonwealth Financial Counselling service. Diane Bos, who is the general manager of Lifeline Ipswich and West Moreton region, which covers all of the rural areas outside of Ipswich, contacted me some months ago about the need for the continuation of the Commonwealth Financial Counselling service. I advocated on her behalf. I know this program has made a big difference. The Salvation Army have been involved in this program as well. When the parliamentary secretary came to Ipswich the first time, she visited the Salvation Army at Bundamba and also the distribution centre. The distribution centre was flooded, as was the church at Bundamba.
When the parliamentary secretary came back on 16 April, we met with a family who were really badly affected. The Garfer family in Ipswich had lost everything. Mr Garfer was living in the Unilinks apartments at Churchill, near Deebing Creek, which was entirely flooded, and lost everything. He related how the financial counselling service, as well as emergency relief, made a big impact on his life. From speaking to people like Diane Bos and Rick Hoffmann from the Salvation Army, and Brad Strong, who runs Canaan, which is the employment service at Riverview, I know that that sort of emergency relief and the financial counselling have made a big difference.
As the farmers, the small business operators, the families and the individuals are recovering from the flood, they need financial help. They need assistance—not just compassionate help in terms of goods and services but a helping hand and a genuine bit of advice to help them get back on their feet. This compassion and genuine care is clearly shown through the wonderful people at Lifeline, the Salvation Army and other local organisations in the Ipswich and Somerset region. I am interested in knowing what the budget means for those flood affected areas, not just in emergency relief but through the Commonwealth financial counselling services both nationally and across flood affected areas of Queensland.
I thank the member for Blair for his question. It was indeed a privilege to visit Queensland after the floods. As he said, I did go up about 10 days after the floods in Brisbane, Ipswich and the Lockyer Valley. Seeing the devastation firsthand was quite shocking, and it had a profound effect on me as an individual. I certainly know it had an effect on the local members who were dealing with it on the ground, ensuring that their local communities got the support they needed. I put on record the tenacity of the member for Blair in terms of his contact with government. Many members whose constituencies were flood-affected contacted ministers about the needs of the local community so that we could respond. I was pleased on my first visit to announce an additional $1 million of emergency relief for flood affected areas of Queensland. That money was out on the ground really quickly and was used before 30 June.
The member for Blair asks me about particular measures in this year's budget, and I am pleased to say that in April, on my second visit to Queensland, I again visited the member for Blair's electorate and we were able to announce just over $15 million of funding for 18 months at current levels for emergency relief and Commonwealth financial counselling in flood affected Queensland and flood affected areas of New South Wales and Victoria. It was really important, from talking to local service providers on the ground, that they had certainty early on, as early as April when we made the announcement, so that they knew that, come 1 July, the GFC additional funding that we had there would continue at those levels for the next 18 months, and would continue to provide local services in those communities. We have also become aware of some additional needs and we have been able to provide some additional support to local organisations on a case-by-case basis. We have certainly provided some additional support to Playgroup Queensland to assist vulnerable families in those areas with practical measures like time with their children with new toys and in a new environment to help replace what was lost in the floods.
We know that a lot of service providers themselves suffered. As the member for Blair said, the Salvation Army had their own hall flooded and we were able to get support on the ground really quickly. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the Queensland government. We were working with them very closely to provide support early on and to see what the two governments could do, working together, to get that support on the ground in those flood affected areas. I was able to meet with the Queensland minister on my first visit and have those discussions very frankly. We were able to communicate and get things going on the ground really early on. I am pleased to hear that that has made a difference. Certainly that funding is there for the 18 months at current levels for all of those flood affected areas of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.
I would like to ask the minister some questions about the work bonus scheme. Presently, somebody who is working and of pensionable age can receive $146 a fortnight before their entitlement starts to diminish. With your work bonus, you say that they can earn $250 a fortnight, which will be discounted against the income test. Is that $250 on top of the $146 or does it include the $146? In other words, are people entitled to earn $396 a fortnight before their pension is affected or is it really only an extra $114?
That is a very important question for people to understand, and it will particularly impact on the person whose situation was raised by Mr Andrews, who earned $390 working for the Electoral Commission. Yesterday in a public hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters we heard evidence from representatives of the Community and Public Sector Union. I asked them if they were having a problem recruiting people who are retired to work as electoral officials because of the impact that that lump sum payment has on their pension entitlement. Under us, when we were in government, they were allowed to average it over a year, but under you it hits in a lump sum. The answer they gave was that yes, it is impacting on their ability to recruit, and the result of that, quite frankly, is the long queues that people are now experiencing on election day. We had evidence of that as well. I would like to know precisely what that $250 really means and how it will impact on people such as those who choose to work, as Mr Andrews asked.
My second question relates to the age discrimination commissioner. In your press release, you said we needed to have a dedicated age commissioner appointed. As I understand it, at the present time the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has responsibility for both. That is not what I call a dedicated person. We on this side are very supportive of the appointment of such a person. I would like some explanation as to why it has not already been done and what is in train for that appointment.
My third question is regarding Table 2.4: Budgeted expenses for outcome 4 in the portfolio budget statement for FaHCSIA. I go to the items called 'Expenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year'—there are two such items in that outcome. In a footnote it says that this covers 'depreciation, amortisation and make good expenses'. As I understand it, depreciation is no longer paid as an up-front figure; it is paid specifically when there is a need for replacement of capital items. I would like you to confirm how much of those amounts of money are relevant to depreciation. Secondly, I want to know what a 'make good' expense is and to have a breakdown of those figures, which are quite considerable—half a million dollars and $2.4 million.
Fourthly, I note that Mr Andrews asked very specifically whether or not your department was doing any costing of possible Greens policies, as they take over in the Senate from 1 July, and he would like an answer to that question.
I thank the member for Mackellar for her questions. On the last point: the purpose of this committee is to examine the appropriation bill and that is what we are doing. We are not here to examine hypothetical things that the opposition might like to dream up.
On the work bonus: I can confirm that the $250 is on top. I would have thought the opposition would know this, because they voted for the work bonus, both the first and second rounds, and I am pleased that the opposition supported it. So the member for Mackellar can put her mind at rest in that regard. I turn now to the issue of the Age Discrimination Commissioner. This government is very pleased to support the establishment of Australia's first national Age Discrimination Commissioner—and I am glad that the member for Mackellar has agreed that it needs to be done and funded. It is actually not funded in this appropriation; it is funded under the Attorney-General's appropriation, but it is this government that is doing it. It was not the Liberal government that did it. The Liberal government left the same situation that the member for Mackellar actually describes as not being adequate, so I am glad she recognises that that government did not do the right thing by older Australians. This government will.
As to the specific question on the table and the depreciation questions she has, I will get my department to respond to the member in writing.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
Order! The member for Mackellar has had a chance to ask her question.
I am very pleased to be able to lend my remarks in addition to those of the member for Blair, particularly, who spoke earlier about emergency relief funding and financial counselling. I know that financial counselling services that have been supported by this government at the instigation of the minister and the parliamentary secretary have stood to the very great advantage of quite a lot of people, particularly in the growth region of my electorate, where quite a lot of new families are facing mortgage stresses and difficulties in dealing with their own finances, and I appreciate the assistance that organisations which receive financial counselling support from the government are able to provide.
One of those organisations, in particular, that springs very much to mind is the Casey North Community Information and Support Service, which I have a bit to do with in my electorate. Since I became the member for La Trobe relatively recently, I know from their comments that they certainly appreciate the efforts that the government has made in financial counselling. From the last report of the Casey North Community Information and Support Service, I know that in the area of Berwick they have seen a 58 per cent increase in the number of financial counselling services and individual action items that they have provided to residents. There are clearly needs, and they are clearly responding very well to those needs.
The financial counselling services that we are helping to support reflect part of the broader agenda that this government has in supporting consumers, individuals and families in better money management—a better understanding of what could otherwise be fairly precarious financial circumstances—through useful tools like MoneySmart and the initiatives we are contemplating in relation to better consumer protection and in relation to credit arrangements. This goes hand in hand with all of those kinds of endeavours and is very, very helpful indeed.
I am particularly aware that the financial counselling services that are provided in my electorate do not simply go to assisting people with their financial health. They very much go to ensuring that relationships are not put under additional stress. They go to supporting women who are in financial difficulties, particularly those who face the circumstances of being single parents. The additional efforts that go to assisting them to better understand their debt circumstances and their exposure to credit risk, and just giving them a helping hand, are particularly valuable.
I ask the Parliament Secretary for Community Services to elaborate a little more on the way the financial counselling services are expanded upon in this budget, or are continued in this budget, and to outline a little further how these services will advantage electorates such as mine.
I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. We were really pleased to be able to announce in the federal budget that the Commonwealth financial counsellors boost that we provided for the global financial crisis is able to continue at existing levels. This money will provide 77 full-time equivalent financial counsellor positions across the country, providing financial counselling services right around Australia. It is an additional $28 million over four years for financial counselling services. We were also able to fund in the budget the financial counsellors peak body. That body was formerly known as AFCCRA but has since had a name change, and I was fortunate enough to attend the financial counsellors' national conference recently where they celebrated the new name. They were very pleased with the government's decision to continue funding at GFC levels on an ongoing basis in the federal budget. They were particularly pleased about the three-year contracts for financial counselling, because these will allow the very skilled staff who are currently providing those financial counselling services to vulnerable Australians—those Australians who require their support—to be retained in those positions. As we were talking to service providers around the country, one of the things that became evident was that shorter term contracts meant that they were losing very valuable staff as it got towards the end of the financial year, and now these three-year contracts will mean that the financial counselling staff who are providing those services to local communities will be able to have ongoing security of their own tenure, and therefore their clients will be able to rely on those services.
The other thing that we have been able to do in the budget is to provide some additional funding for the 1800 number. It is a nationwide number for financial counselling services. You get a financial counsellor on the other end of the line when you ring. That number is 1800007007. It is like a triage system. You answer a few questions and they then decide whether you need a referral to a face-to-face counsellor or whether it is something somebody could help you with over the phone. That funding of $2.2 million will provide some additional support staff but also some critical infrastructure to allow that 1800 number to operate across Australia, so it is really good news for everyone across the country. From talking to the financial counselling services, the providers, about the 77 full-time-equivalent positions across the country, they are really thrilled that they are going to be able to continue to provide those services.
As you indicated in your remarks, the whole suite of services is necessary. The government has recognised in this budget that we do have a patchwork economy. We have gone to great lengths to make sure that those most vulnerable in our community are receiving the support they need. We are doing that with the emergency relief. We are doing that with the financial counselling. And we are doing it with the money management schemes, such as the No Interest Loan Scheme or NILS and the Saver Plus scheme that are operating, by putting an additional $60 million, as I said earlier, into those over the four years.
So we are providing a range of measures. It is not just that you turn up once in a matter of crisis and you get the support you need. That certainly happens, but if you have ongoing issues there is the 1800 number to call for financial counselling, or there are case management workers at emergency relief outlets, or there are financial counsellors provided by those community organisations, who can then refer their clients on, whether it be to the No Interest Loan Scheme or whatever, to get support. So there is a whole suite of measures that we have looked at in this budget, and it has been really pleasing to see the response from the financial counsellors themselves but also from those great community organisations that are out on the ground every day providing these services.
I had the privilege of talking to some of the Anglicare providers here in Parliament House this morning. They were greatly pleased with the measures outlined in the budget when it came to financial counselling services and emergency relief. They also particularly talked to me about the No Interest Loan Scheme provided through Good Shepherd, which is certainly providing a great community service to those Australians who are vulnerable, have a time of crisis and are in great need.
I would note that, in relation to my last question, particularly relating to the work bonus, that the minister herself had to turn round and ask whether or not the $250 was on top of the $146. So I am grateful that that matter has now been cleared up. The $250, I must say, was worth voting for, in any event. But I do think that people who are affected by it are entitled to have it clear, and her press release did not make that clear.
But, very importantly, I also asked the about the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. The minister was quite unwilling to give any information pertaining to when it was likely that there might be a commissioner against ageing. I did say that I believed that it was currently being shared with the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and, as the minister who was answering previously was unable to give any information, I will direct my question now to the Minister for the Status of Women. Can she confirm that the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, will have the dual role of Age Discrimination Commissioner and when does she think that Ms Broderick might be relieved of her second responsibility and an Age Discrimination Commissioner appointed, as was promised and boasted of in Ms Macklin's press release? She said:
The Government strongly believes people susceptible to age discrimination deserve a dedicated advocate.
I note that we still do not have an advocate and perhaps you can shine some light on when Ms Broderick may lose her dual function.
Thank you very much for the question. As the member might be aware, the appointments, and indeed the appropriation, which cover the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the forthcoming Age Discrimination Commissioner are covered by the Attorney-General's Department, so it is a question that the member might want to direct elsewhere. However, I would take this opportunity to respond to the issue of relieving the Sex Discrimination Commissioner of her duties. I make clear and get on the record that we appreciate the role that Elizabeth Broderick has been doing—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11 : 41 to 12 : 04
As I was saying before the suspension, I would like to make it very clear that, while Elizabeth Broderick has previously operated as both Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Age Discrimination Commissioner, the fact that we are splitting these roles is in absolutely no way a reflection on her and her performance; in fact, it is quite the contrary. Elizabeth Broderick has made clear just how important both of these issues are, and the government is incredibly active in both these fields. The government recognises that discrimination against older Australians continues to exist in the community, and that is why we are making sure they have their own dedicated commissioner.
Members would be aware that we have a lot of activity in this area. We have announced the Experience Plus package with special incentives and training and support to make sure mature-age Australians who want to keep active in the workforce are able to do so. As well as that, there are all of our ongoing programs. I will leave it to the Attorney-General to make announcements in his portfolio about the timing and naming of the Age Discrimination Commissioner, so that is something the member may wish to put to him. But I put on record my great personal gratitude to Elizabeth Broderick for her advocacy in this area. I am very grateful that I will get to continue working with her as Sex Discrimination Commissioner.
The time for this debate—
Not quite—we have two minutes and 40 seconds left. I would just like to point out that in no way was my criticism levelled at Commissioner Broderick. My criticism was levelled at the Minister for the Status of Women, who was unable to give me any indication of when her Sex Discrimination Commissioner may be doing that as a full-time job and when a new Age Discrimination Commissioner will be appointed. Nor was Minister Macklin able to do that despite her May 2011 press release in which she says the government 'strongly believes people susceptible to age discrimination deserve a dedicated advocate'.
They are very good at words but I would point out to you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that, when it came to my age discrimination bill to get rid of 75 as the age at which an employee may not receive superannuation payments, the government opposed it with every trick in the book. They are great at giving lip service to the concept of age discrimination but, when it actually came to doing something, the minister responsible for the $250 work bonus had to ask her staff at the back whether or not it is on top of, or included in, the $146 that they are entitled to earn now. She did not know. We have a Minister for the Status of Women who does not know when an Age Discrimination Commissioner might be appointed. It is all down to the Attorney-General, she says, but I would have thought that, as a minister, she would have an interest in this and that Minister Macklin would have an interest in mature-age workers and sex discrimination. Once again we see the government giving lip-service to the question of age discrimination, but when it comes to doing something about it, they fail to do so.
While I do have three more minutes, I would like to put a question on notice. I would like to know how many people in the Public Service are currently in the PSS and therefore maximise their superannuation entitlements at the age of 54 years and 11 months. I now know that it is a closed scheme, but I would like to know how many people aged under 55 are in that scheme. I would also like to know how many people have been on that scheme and retired at the age of 54 years and 11 months on a Friday and then come back to work the next Monday as a contractor at the same rate of pay.
I am interested to note that the former head of the Treasury, who I think is nearly 54, has retired from that position. I do not know whether he has in fact left the Public Service but I note that the Governor-General has appointed that person on a salary of $550,000 a year pro rated.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Mackellar said two minutes and 40 seconds ago that we had two minutes and 40 seconds remaining in the debate, and I know that we are all keen to move on.
We can all tell the time; it says one minute and 54 seconds. I would like to know precisely why that appointment was made by the Governor-General, whether or not the government has in place any policy on 'Friday to Monday appointees' and whether or not this was relevant to the appointment made by the Governor-General. I would be very pleased to receive that information. I would also like to know why, in the criteria that are set down for assisting mature-age workers back into the workforce, there is nothing about people losing their jobs because of age discrimination. In the press release they talk about discrimination on the basis of having a disability or having an illness, but there is no mention of people losing their job on the basis of age discrimination, which is of course what the need for an age discrimination commissioner is all about and presumably—I would hope—what the work bonus is about. If we are able to keep people in the workforce, particularly over the age of 55—we see nearly 1.5 million workers drop out between the ages of 45 and 55—and increase the participation rate, we would see a dramatic change in the skills and workers that we need and we would see those people, instead of being discriminated against, able to keep their skills up and in fact become part of the taxpaying community.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $5,838,368
The proposed expenditure now before the committee is for the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio: $5,838,368,000. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. The committee will now consider the trade segment of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration.
I am pleased to report that on trade policy we have had so far a very active year with the release of a landmark trade policy by the Gillard government that reconnects with the Hawke-Keating tradition of economic reform and the fashioning of an open, competitive economy that has laid the foundations for 20 years of recession-free economic growth in this country. That is a proud achievement and has been made possible by the productivity gains that have emanated from the reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s. Those reforms include the floating of the dollar, the liberalisation of the financial markets and also the liberalisation of product markets through gradual reductions in industry protection. There was a period under the previous coalition government where the government lost its way in terms of maintaining the disciplines of those reforms, and this trade strategy seeks to reconnect with the traditions and the disciplines that have served Australia so well.
The second major development is the completion of a review of the Australian trade service, Austrade, which has resulted in a refocusing of Austrade's activities. Austrade was established by the previous Labor government but quite remarkably had not been the subject of a comprehensive review for a period of about 20 years—since 1990, in fact. This review initiated by the CEO of Austrade, Mr Peter Grey—and I thank him for his work in doing that—has led to a refocusing. Austrade is a great Australian institution and represents Australia very well overseas, but it had been loaded up with so many responsibilities by so many different governments over the years that it had not ever got the authority to cease some of the activities that it was engaged in, but in fact was expected to do more and more. That is why there was merit in this refocusing.
To summarise that refocusing, the effort will be concentrated more in emerging markets in developing countries—frontier markets. Where their markets are already mature, perhaps Austrade does not need the same level of presence that it has now. So this is a reallocation of resources to emerging markets in such countries and regions as Latin America, parts of Africa, Central Asia and west China in particular. So this reorientation makes good sense because that is where Austrade can make the greatest gains.
I do not propose to go on any longer because I think democracy dictates that it should not just be me speaking here but that we enable other members of the parliament to ask me questions.
I have a very keen interest in Austrade, particularly its work within the South Pacific area. Indeed, earlier today I got to talk about the involvement it has with the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, REEEP. I get to see what this organisation has done, in partnership with various organisations within our region, to help Australian businesses set up, particularly in the Pacific region. I congratulate Mr Mark Fogarty, Chair of REEEP, as well as Ms Eva Oberender, the regional coordinator for REEEP in the South Pacific region. I get to see the good work they have done, particularly in Tonga, where they are trying to reduce the country's dependency on imported fossil fuels.
Minister, are you able to give us more detail on the review that is being conducted into Austrade? As I understand it, this is the most significant review that has occurred in the last 20 years. Could the minister advise the House on the new priorities that have been set for Austrade and what this will mean for exporters trying to break into the frontier and emerging markets. Where I live, in the south-west of Sydney, one of the areas of employment is in importing and exporting businesses. I know how much those businesses rely on Austrade to help develop and identify opportunities through market research. Austrade also looks at the construction of business networks within the Pacific region and manufacture throughout the broader Asian region. Particularly my constituents of Vietnamese origin, as well as those from Hong Kong, have taken a very clear view that Austrade has been a very valuable mechanism in being able to help source targeted markets and help with the development of market research, as well as providing some of the necessary underpinning infrastructure that goes to establishing markets in those regions. It is for those reasons that people in my electorate with those types of businesses have a close association with Austrade. On their behalf, I am coming to see the developments that have occurred within Austrade that will further strengthen Austrade's ability to assist Australian businesses as they aspire to enter foreign markets, particularly within our region. Those developments are particularly the frontier markets, as well as emerging markets in other areas.
I mentioned what is occurring with Austrade in partnership with the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership and what it means for Tonga, a country that relies, for more than 70 per cent of its energy sources, on overseas petroleum product, while, regrettably, more than 60 per cent of the people of Tonga do not have access to electrical power. However, through the efforts of Austrade and REEEP, I understand that is being addressed significantly. One of the things that Austrade can do quite effectively in our region is help nations such as Tonga to move away from entrenched poverty by giving people to access to power. It is very important for organisations like that to do that—not simply to provide power to the rest of the population but to provide significant things that we take for granted in this country, such as electrical power to schools and portable power to various homes so that people can undertake their study out of school hours.
These are things that we in this country can, thankfully, take for granted, but for many people in Tonga that is a hope beyond hope. They are reliant on organisations such as Austrade developing opportunities for Australian businesses to bring our home sourced technologies to benefit them, to help them to provide electrical power to their nation, reducing the level of poverty and reducing their dependence on the ever-rising fossil fuel market from which they presently must source their energy.
I thank the member for Fowler for his longstanding interest in the activities of Austrade and most particularly his interest in the role that Austrade can play in lifting some of the poorest nations on earth and their people out of poverty. Sometimes we look at these things too mechanistically. The truth is that a great institution like Austrade can do its very best for Australia but, with trade and development, these are not zero-sum games. You can actually create wins for everyone through the gains from trade and through technical cooperation.
The member for Fowler asked me to elaborate somewhat on the rationale behind the shift in emphasis of Austrade. I will give the member for Fowler a couple of examples. I said earlier that the institution had been loaded up with a lot of extra responsibilities but no-one had really said to it, 'We're now going to reduce that load.' That is what we have now said. The previous government had a target of doubling the number of exporters, which led to Austrade being obliged to go around trying to get someone to export something because that meant there was one more number in a box. It was not, therefore, primarily concerned with the ongoing sustainability of that export activity. If they could get them to export something, that was a pat on the back and a tick in the box. We have now relieved Austrade of that responsibility and instead acknowledged that, in these so-called frontier and emerging markets, if you can imagine a single Australian business going into those markets, the information costs are very, very high for a single business. They would need to know not only about the government of that particular country but also about the provincial governing arrangements—all the regulations of a country just emerging and starting to grow strongly but in which there is great potential for Australian business and the gains from trade. Those search costs, if you like, can be prohibitive for a single company or two companies. But if Austrade is in there and working with the local authorities at the national and subnational levels, that of course means it can generate that information and make it freely available not only to one or two companies but to all comers. So the whole concept here is of reducing the high search costs in these emerging or frontier markets which would otherwise be prohibitive for a single company. For the more mature markets, yes, there is still a role for Austrade, but it is not as pressing, given finite resources, when you have commercial agents in those countries who can introduce businesses that are hoping to export to potential importers and customers more generally.
So this shift is designed to get ahead of the game, to anticipate the development opportunities in countries such as Mongolia and regions such as Central Asia, Africa and Latin America. Most pertinent, in terms of a recent visit I paid to provincial parts of China, is, again, that the search costs can be quite high. That is what we are doing, Member for Fowler.
I was delighted with the public response to the review, because you can easily anticipate that the public and business organisations would say, 'Don't reduce anything; just keep increasing.' They recognised that there are finite budgetary resources. All the industry associations applauded and supported the refocussing so that Austrade does better those things for which we give it responsibility. That is how we are managing that reform. I pay tribute to Peter Grey, the CEO of Austrade, who initiated that reform. When I became the Minister for Trade I helped steer it, and we are, I think, going to achieve a very, very successful outcome.
Finally, in relation to Mongolia, we pre-announced our interest when the government of Mongolia was represented here in Australia, and they were delighted. So it is about anticipating where the big opportunities will come from. I will finish where I started: it is not only good for Australian businesses but good for economic development in those countries with emerging markets.
My question is to the Minister for Trade. Could you give the House an update, with reference to trade, on live cattle exports to Indonesia? Also, if you have time, could you update the House, with reference to the resources sector and our ongoing commitment with our trading partners, as to when we think that those volumes of coal and iron ore into China will start petering off, given that inflation is starting to overboil in China, which will have an impact on the Australian market and trade?
I thank the member for Wright. As one of the whips for the coalition, he was here anyway, but he does have a legitimate interest in these issues. I have been disappointed with the turnout from coalition MPs at what is normally a good opportunity for the opposition to ask questions. I do acknowledge that the member for Aston is here. My counterpart is not, but this would not be the first time I have missed out on a question from my counterpart, because I never have, in fact, had one.
On the live cattle trade to Indonesia, the Australian people were overwhelmingly shocked at the images on the Four Corners program. The Australian government moved quickly to deal with the animal welfare issues, and that is what they are: animal welfare issues. We are very supportive of the Indonesian government and of our friends in Indonesia, and we are handling this issue with that very much in mind.
So there was a suspension. Our authorities are now working together with a view to identifying at least some of those processing facilities that can achieve, or be confirmed to be at, international standards. Once we are able to do that and, importantly, once we have a tracking system to ensure that it is the Australian-origin cattle which are processed through those facilities, then we will have a basis for resuming the trade. A wider review has been announced, and this confirms that this in no way is intended to single out Indonesia, only that that is where the evidence is to date. If further evidence comes to light in terms of animal welfare issues then the Australian government would need to consider what action it would take.
We understand that this is an important and viable business for cattle stations and those employed in and around them, particularly in Northern Australia. It is not, by international standards, a big journey from Northern Australia to Indonesia, and the process there has been that the cattle are grown in Northern Australia, then exported live to Indonesia, where there is further fattening that occurs in feedlots. We have already been working with the Indonesian government on technical cooperation on animal husbandry, to improve the productivity of the Indonesian side of the operations. This is part of the overall philosophy in the comprehensive economic partnership agreement with Indonesia which we are currently negotiating. My Indonesian counterpart and others whom I have met in Indonesia have pointed out that a comprehensive economic partnership means what it says—this is not just a trade deal that we are seeking to negotiate with Indonesia; it is also a deal to ensure that the Indonesian people at large will benefit from the sort of technical support that we are able to provide.
Finally, on the issue of mineral exports, I am not a soothsayer, a mineral export price forecaster. I think there is an understanding that we are now, in terms of mineral prices, on a sustained basis at the highest levels in around 140 years, which takes us back to the gold rush ages in Australia. But more production will come on board. We know that it is happening internationally, but we also know it is happening in a very big way here in Australia. So when we hear prophesies about carbon pricing and about a mineral resource rent tax, I would urge all members simply to have a look at the figures on how much extra investment is being committed into mineral development in this country, because we are a good mineral rich country with a stable, robust democracy. We are close to the important markets: here is Australia, in the Asian region, in the Asian century. So the future for mineral development in this country is a very bright one indeed as we integrate our economy, following the same philosophy that I talked about when I opened, the Hawke-Keating philosophy of an open, competitive economy placing Australia in the Asian region in the Asian century. That is what is happening and that is why we are getting such good dividends out of it.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Debate interrupted.
Coptic Christianity in Egypt is one of the most remarkable religious and cultural traditions of the world. This ethno-religious group reaches back 2,000 years to the time of the apostles. The Christian Copts once formed the majority of Egypt's population. Today they are a vulnerable minority in a predominantly Muslim country. Last New Year's Eve a barbaric terrorist bombing killed 24 people and injured close to 100 who were leaving a church service in Alexandria. News from Egypt has, however, been dominated by the popular uprising earlier this year. The revolution provides hope of a transition to a healthy democracy. One would have hoped that the revolution would also lead to improved security for Christians. Unfortunately, though, this does not seem to have happened.
Members of the Coptic community in my electorate have informed me about continued attacks and murders that have taken place continuously this year. After the revolution, 'the intensity and frequency of crimes has dramatically escalated and reached an alarming and unacceptable level of daily events,' according to Australian Coptic leaders. Information from news agencies verifies this assessment. The violence against and intimidation of Christians Copts takes many forms. The perpetrators may be organised groups, sometimes with links to international Islamic terrorism. The Alexandria massacre was reportedly the deed of a Gaza based terrorist organisation. In other cases, mobs seem to have committed spontaneous violent acts when smaller disputes have escalated. There are, however, some disturbing common features in many of the incidents. At the centre of many incidents are tales of women who allegedly have converted to Islam but are held captive by Christians. This is obviously an irrational myth, impossible for the victims to defend themselves against. Another common type of violence is attacks on churches. Extremists try to force the closure of churches, prevent churches from being built or destroy and desecrate churches.
The attitude of authorities, unfortunately, is often to interpret incidents as criminal acts that are not religiously or politically motivated. Police and military often fail to intervene to protect Copts. Local authorities also have a record of discrimination against Copts in their administration.
Large bombings like the one in Alexandria attract international attention, but we do not hear about the thousands of incidents, insults and crimes against individuals that make Christians increasingly reluctant to use public transport or leave their homes unless absolutely necessary. It is difficult to acquire an exact understanding of the sectarian violence in Egypt. This, however, is not necessary in order to formulate the demands that must be made of the Egyptian leadership. It would be possible for the leaders of Egypt to quickly improve the human rights situation for Coptic Christians. The real source of power, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, has full control of Egypt. It is within the power of the supreme council to make protection of the Coptic minority a main element of the plan for transition to democratic rule. It is important that the Australian government not only condemns the violence against Coptic Christians but also uses all available avenues to press the leaders of Egypt to immediately send a message to all levels of government that the human rights of all citizens must be respected. If this is not successful the government should consider introducing temporary safe haven visas similar to the temporary visas given to the Kosovar Albanians in 1999. The coalition has already committed to granting Coptic Christians access to our humanitarian program, restoring the arrangement under the Howard government that saw over 100 Copts given access to Australia each year.
Finally, I want to point out that the worsening situation for Copts in Egypt is one part of a prolonged and agonising drama of Christian exodus from Middle Eastern countries. There is insufficient debate of this tragedy in the West. The Muslims who choose to migrate to Western countries enjoy freedoms, acceptance and protection, which should be provided to Christians in the Muslim world. The ancient Christian communities in the Middle East are finding it increasingly hard to survive in their home countries. Copts are significantly overrepresented amongst migrants from Egypt. These people are welcome to Australian, as are all people who want to share in our values and seize the opportunities that Australia offers. But we have an obligation to do what we can to ensure that their brothers who remain in Egypt can live their lives in freedom and with dignity.
May 26th marked the third World Multiple Sclerosis Day. I commend the work of MS Australia and MS organisations around the world for raising the profile of this disease that affects more than 20,000 Australians.
I also commend the member for Chisholm for her motion to mark this day, which she brought to the House on Monday, 30 May. Due to the popularity of that motion, I was unable to secure a speaking spot at the time, so do so in this adjournment debate today.
The global theme for World MS Day 2011 is employment. Staying at work is a key concern for people diagnosed with MS, as they are likely to be diagnosed in their early adult years, a vital time for establishing a career and starting a family.
The headquarters of MS Australia is at The Nerve Centre in Blackburn, which is in my electorate of Deakin. The locality of the organisation has assisted me to foster an excellent relationship with the many dedicated people who work there. I frequently meet with Alan Blackwood and Robert Pask. Robert Pask is a MS sufferer himself and is known to many people in this House.
He's a good guy.
He is a very good guy. It is great to have that sort of local contact. It certainly gives you a greater understanding of what so many of those people are up against. Volunteers, staff and the chief operating officer, Robyn Hunter, do so much hard work there.
Much of the work done by MS Australia addresses employment issues that face people with MS and their families. The employment story of MS sufferers in Australia is not a smooth one. The Australian MS Longitudinal Study has conducted two large sample, nationwide surveys of the economic impact of multiple sclerosis in Australia. The first was performed in 2003 and showed that the financial cost of MS was over $600 million annually. The second study was conducted in 2007. In the four-year period between the two studies, there was a pattern of Australians with MS losing their employment. A total of 80 per cent of survey participants with MS had lost their employment within 10 years of diagnosis and were no longer in the paid workforce.
MS, like many other chronic diseases, is costly. The Victorian Chronic Illness Alliance found that, in 2006, some people with MS can spend up to 20 per cent of their income on health costs. That means that staying at work becomes not just a dignity issue but integral to help meet the costs that come with managing this lifelong disease.
On 17 February 2009, The Nerve Centre in Blackburn hosted a disability employment roundtable. The then federal Minister for Employment Participation, as well as key stakeholders in disability employment, including MS Australia, BrainLink, employer and employee representatives, got together at a roundtable and talked over these issues. It was a pretty good and valuable experience for the people who attended.
The conversation we had there that day fed into the government's deliberations, especially on the national disability employment strategy. From that, I can tell the House that the Labor government is listening and has acted by putting employment supports in place through Job Services Australia.
The Disability Employment Services program was uncapped in 2009, providing services for those who need them. The job-in-jeopardy provisions of the program were improved and the Workplace Modification Scheme continues to provide essential equipment and modifications to support people with a disability at work. Many people with MS have taken advantage of these services and MS Australia operate a specialist neurological employment service in Victoria that currently works with over 100 people with MS. On 29 July last year I had the privilege of hosting the Prime Minister, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the then Parliament Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services at MS Australia's headquarters in their centre at Blackburn. That was a particularly important day because on that day the National Disability Strategy was announced outlining a 10-year national plan to improve the lives of people with a disability, promote participation and create a more inclusive society. The Gillard government wants people with disabilities to have the same opportunities as other Australians: access to education, work and community facilities. I am sure we would all agree that that is integral to the aim.
All of us should celebrate the great achievements of MS organisations all over the world and particularly MS Australia. But we should acknowledge that all the work that has been done, which is fantastic in itself, is merely a start. We should not forget the ongoing research and hard work ahead needed to eradicate this debilitating disease.
Recently, apple and pear orchardists from across Australia descended upon Parliament House to showcase their produce and launch a report detailing the economic impact of imported applies on the Australian apple industry. Amongst the orchardists from WA, South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria were also orchardists from Calare, who brought with them some of their very own home-grown produce from Orange. The Orange region is renowned for being the fruit basket of New South Wales. It is home to some of the best orchards in the state, and yesterday's breakfast was a fantastic showcase of the quality produce from our region.
The launch was a timely response to the government's proposal to rubber-stamp New Zealand apple imports, despite the risk of fire blight, a disease that has the potential to seriously impede the Australian apple and pear industry. Australia is virtually the only country without it. Labor has continued to withdraw spending from agriculture, making cuts across research and development, biosecurity and other farm assistance programs.
In February our Prime Minister stood up in the New Zealand parliament and basically said: 'Bring them in. I love you all. Come on, come on.' Our Prime Minister said, 'Don't worry about fire blight; she'll be right,' and called for the importation of New Zealand apples into Australia. AQIS staff within the department seem to have taken her lead that they should make it as easy as possible to bring New Zealand apples into our country, whatever the risk.
At the launch, one of my local orchardists, Guy Gaeta, made mention of the fact that it was more difficult to get apples into Parliament House than it will be to import apples into Australia from New Zealand under the proposed draft protocols by Biosecurity Australia. It is a disgrace. I hope this week's visit by growers sends a wake-up call to the government.
The government has consistently ignored biosecurity and significantly underinvested in quarantine arrangements. We have already seen with myrtle rust and the Asian honeybee that the government simply will not put the resources, the time and the effort into protecting Australian agriculture, when it can be done. Of the 49 countries that have contracted fire blight, not one country has been able to eliminate it. The current proposed protocols will lead to a very real risk of fire blight. Even worse, as a result of apple imports from New Zealand, China and the US, the industry is expected to lose around $140 million a year. We need to vigorously defend our disease-free reputation and Labor need to wake up to themselves and put the interests of our industry over big-noting themselves on the world stage.
I would like the thank the local orchardists, particularly those from Calare, for coming to Parliament House and taking a stand against high-risk apple imports, which, without appropriate protocols in place that complement WTO rules, have the potential to impact Australian growers. They know the government has put their livelihoods at stake. They are well aware of the risk of fire blight and the damage it will and could have on our industry.
The final date for submissions on Australia's import protocols is 4 July 2011. I urge orchardists and fellow Australians to make submissions, because if the current recommendations are adopted it downgrades our imports way beyond anything the WTO are saying. It risks fire blight and severely risks the whole Australian apple and pear industry.
None of us want our children to take up the habit of smoking. That is why this parliament is behind the plain packaging legislation. Big tobacco has obviously been very vengeful with this government about its moves to support plain packaging. We have seen that over the last few days. The Liberal Party needs to make a turnaround on plain packaging of cigarettes and after much huffing and puffing they have decided to come on board. But they need to escape from the clutches of big tobacco, who help fill their party coffers. It is inevitable that they will kick the habit of taking money from tobacco companies. The Labor Party announced in 2004 it would on principle not take money from big tobacco, and no-one has received a dollar, including the current health minister, since. The Liberal Party by contrast—the member for Higgins should know this—has received more than $2.1 million from big tobacco. And that does not include donations to individual electorate campaigns under the disclosable limit of $10,000. Since Russell Crowe's masterful film The Insider, big tobacco has not dared give donations and try to influence other democratic countries. But in Australia big tobacco gives 97 per cent of its donations to the Liberal and National parties sitting over there. They are guilty, that is why they are squealing. And they would not give it in any other country.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The members to my left are reminded that the member has a right to be heard in silence.
Nothing illustrates the stink of tobacco that haunts the Liberal Party than the unanswered questions about the member for Indi's donations via a group in 2007 called Friends of Indi. Friends of Indi failed to lodge a financial return for two years, 2005-07, keeping its receipts and donations secret. It was not until British American Tobacco lodged its returns that the Friends of Indi's cover was blown. Two receipts were received by the AEC in 2005-06 from British American Tobacco, with the value of $7,500 each, to Friends of Indi. The member for Indi, and member of the shadow ministry, was a direct beneficiary of donations made to the Friends of Indi including this $15,000 donation from British American Tobacco. It was not the first time that she has received such donations. In 2004-05 she received $5,000 from British American Tobacco. Only last year Friends of Indi received $35,000, although the AEC notes in its current returns:
No individual receipts were declared by this associated entity.
The member for Warringah is increasingly isolated on this issue. Even the state Liberal parties are coming around to banning donations from the tobacco industry. In 2008 research published by the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health showed that approximately 61 per cent of smokers and 78 per cent of non-smokers were against political parties accepting donations from the tobacco industry. Western Australian Liberal Premier, Colin Barnett, has stated his opposition to tobacco donations. It is time that Mr Abbott and the Liberal Party gave up this river of gold from the tobacco companies. About 20 per cent of Australians are currently addicted to cigarettes. The total cost of drug abuse of this particular form—tobacco—is $55 billion. The cost of tobacco addiction is a great big tax on all Australians, one that Mr Abbott does not seem to care about. It seems that the member for Warringah will not be parting company with big tobacco. Last April he asked directly whether he would stop taking donations from the tobacco industry. He said:
It is legal to smoke. It is not the mafia. I do not see why, if they want to make a donation, that we should not accept it.
So long as he takes this line, the stink of the tobacco lobby will cling to the Liberal Party. I notice the shadow minister for health, Mr Dutton, is extremely uncomfortable with these allegations. I think he is an honourable man. I think it is inevitable that the Liberal Party will eventually catch up with the government and ban donations from big tobacco. I think it is very instructive that this is the only country in the world where major donations are made from big tobacco to a major political party. The Liberal National party should wake up and get rid of this awful influence on its political perspective.
On 24 June it will be one year since Prime Minister Gillard forced Kevin Rudd from his job as Prime Minister of Australia and Leader of the Labor Party.
An opposition member: Injustice day.
That is right. It was an early evening coup, designed by the brains trust of the Labor Party, which delivered three New South Wales premiers in just on three years: Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees and Kristina Keneally. The New South Wales Labor right joined with the Victorian right and the Australian Workers Union to dispatch the member for Griffith—luminaries such as Mark Arbib, Bill Shorten and the Secretary of the AWU, Paul Howes.
After Prime Minister Julia Gillard was installed she said that the government had been losing its way, that it had gone off track. She promised to be different. She promised that she would listen, that she would establish a community consensus for action on the issue of pricing carbon. Before the last election she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead.' Yet what has she done? Weeks after being handed government by the Greens and the Independents, she broke that promise. She has acted in concert with the Greens to impose a price on carbon before taking it to the Australian people. This will harm the Australian economy, it will export jobs, it will increase the cost of living for all Australians and it will place us ahead of the rest of the world in doing just this. The Productivity Commission tells us that no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS. Clearly, Labor wants Australia to go it alone on a carbon tax because it is a demand of the Greens.
The Housing Industry Association have estimated that the average price of a new house will go up by $6,000 as a result of this carbon tax. They have estimated that it will add almost $13,000 to mortgage repayments over the life of a typical mortgage, or close to $50 per month in repayments. According to the government's own figures for a carbon price of $26 a tonne, this will raise electricity bills by 25 per cent, add 6.5c a litre to petrol prices and increase the cost of groceries by five per cent. And that is just at $26 per tonne. The Greens want it to be $40 to start with and over $100 later.
This is a terrible record for this current government, a record of failure and of incompetence. One year on, on this issue alone, it is clear that the government is not holding to its promises. While the government wastes time managing its political image, it is ignoring pleas from the electorate to address basic issues such as education, health, employment, industrial relations and the cost of living. These are the slow-burning issues that do not always get the same media attention but nevertheless have a significant impact on people's lives. The real tragedy of this government is that these basic issues are being shoved aside as it desperately tries to revive its political fortunes.
On each of these fundamental issues the government is about to create real hardship for ordinary Australians. On education, the government has refused to rule out freezing the indexation for school funding after 2013. Parents who pay their tax and work hard to give their children the best education they can afford are now faced with a new unknown. Schools that need funding to pay teacher salaries, improve classrooms and invest in new learning technologies are now faced with increased costs. In real terms it will cost $29 million to the schools in my electorate of Higgins by 2017. This is on top of the waste and mismanagement that has already taken place with a $16 billion BER school halls blowout, which has cost twice the price to implement in government schools as it has in independent schools—a real national tragedy.
On health the government is committed to means testing the private health insurance rebate, making it more expensive for families and individuals to purchase private health insurance. In my electorate of Higgins, 77 per cent of residents have this private health insurance and it will impact them directly. The rebate has proved an effective means of allowing more people to cover themselves in case of injury or ill health and, importantly, of taking pressure off the public health system. But once again Labor has created more uncertainty for Australians by refusing to rule out changes or ease cost of living pressures.
Contrast this political opportunism with the positive policies put forward by the coalition. We have introduced policies to cut red tape for small business. We have proposed new policies for water management, including the construction of new dams to secure our future water supply. We have supported Welfare to Work reform and we have proposed our own four-point plan for participation. We have put forward a $1.9 billion mental health package which, unlike Labor's plan, does not involve taking funding out of existing mental health programs. We have insisted that we will cut Labor's wasteful spending— (Time expired)
I wish to speak today on an issue that I have long been concerned about, and that is domestic violence. It is a truly horrific social problem, one which has an immense and continuing impact on Australian society and one which needs to be tackled. I personally find it distressing, especially when I hear stories of its occurrence in my electorate of Fowler and the surrounding areas of south-west Sydney. The New South Wales Police report that 71 per cent of victims of domestic violence are women and 80 per cent of offenders are men, and most female victims are assaulted by their male partners. Currently, one in three women are expected to experience domestic violence at some point in their lifetime. Children can be direct victims of violence, but they are also victims as a result of witnessing domestic violence. I understand around 25 per cent of young people in Australia have witnessed domestic violence against their mother or stepmother. I want to make it clear that this is not a women's issue; this is an issue for our whole community.
While many studies show that domestic violence is present in families of all different backgrounds and socioeconomic standing, there is evidence that socioeconomic disadvantage is a continuing factor and aggravates domestic violence. The issue is of particular importance to me, given the unacceptable level of domestic violence in the south-west of Sydney. The stories of domestic violence I have heard from members of my community and from social workers, health professionals and the police are all very deeply saddening.
For the past three months I have had a young woman, Zara Maxwell-Smith, working in my office as part of the Australian National Internships Program. During her time with me she has compiled a report on issues of domestic violence in the south-west of Sydney. The findings of Miss Maxwell-Smith's report are firmly based on the views of experienced service providers and community leaders currently working in the area in and about my electorate of Fowler. The report draws specifically on this expertise and provides suggestions on how we can go about reducing domestic violence and its impact on our region. The report gives us information on domestic violence and the related service provision that occurs in the south-west of Sydney. It also identifies key areas that require further investigation and attention.
For example, there are concerns over the current migration procedures and their inadequacy when it comes to conveying information about domestic violence and Australian law. This finding is supported by similar findings made in a 2009 report evaluating Australia's Cultural Orientation Program. The report identifies a number of points in the migration process where further information about domestic violence should be communicated to people moving to Australia. We need to ensure that victims from non-English-speaking backgrounds have greater access to services and that the system does not continue to fail the newest members of our community.
I cannot stress how important it is that the findings of this report be acted upon. Awareness about the law and legal processes, as well as sufficient access to these processes, is critical. Empowering interaction with the law is crucial not only for the victims but also for the perpetrators of domestic violence. They need to understand the ramifications of such a crime, which is really a crime against our community. For many cultural groups, awareness of the law can potentially influence their attitudes so that domestic violence can become and be seen to be more unacceptable and less prevalent within our community. Considering that domestic violence has been shown to occur in intergenerational cycles, it is absolutely imperative that steps are taken to reduce the prevalence and impact of domestic violence now and in the future. I seek leave to table the report entitled Domestic violence in South West Sydney, compiled by Miss Zara Maxwell-Smith, who was working in my office as part of the ANU's internship program.
Leave granted.
As I said, domestic violence is a continuing blight on our community. It should not be seen as an issue for women. This is something that should always be seen as an issue that society itself needs to tackle. This cannot be dealt with in any other way than by ensuring that there is complete awareness, discussion and commitment to stamp out domestic violence. (Time expired)
I would like to take the small amount of time available to me to quickly mention the St Jude's Primary School BER opening that I went to last week in Holder. It was a great day. I would like to thank Bishop Power, who gave a wonderful address to all the students, teachers, staff, parents and friends there. There was also Father Brannelly, who is almost like the Father for the Uhlmann family. He is in charge of the parish priests. We have been to many communions and baptisms of the Uhlmann clan that have been overseen and managed by Father Brannelly, so it was lovely to be back at St Jude's. My nieces also attended St Jude's, so in a way it is a family primary school.
The school received about $2 million, from memory, under the BER program. It helped with significant refurbishment of classrooms and the courtyard. They now have a beautiful new courtyard and there will be a working bee on it to upgrade and replant. That is a great new facility for the students. There is also the major entry area. I would like to thank the parents, teachers, staff, girls and boys of St Jude's Primary School for having me there the other day. It was a great opportunity to share with them in this major investment in their educational future.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 13:02.
asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 12 May 2011:
Did the Prime Minister raise the topic of the Chinese Government's detention of renowned Chinese artist Ai Weiwei with the Chinese when she visited China in April 2011; if not, why not; if so, can she indicate with whom, and what progress has been made resulting from such discussions.
The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
I have publicly indicated that, in my discussions with the Chinese leadership in April, I raised Australia's concerns about human rights, about the recent detention of human rights activists, about the treatment of ethnic minorities, and religious freedom.
The specific details of conversation with foreign leaders are, by convention, considered private.