I present the Selection Committee's report No. 41 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today's Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 8 February 2012:
1. The committee met in private session on 8 February 2012.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills be made:
Standing Committee on Economics:
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012; and
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012.
by leave—The government is committed to providing regular reports and updates on Afghanistan, including to the parliament. I last reported to the parliament on 24 November 2011, with a particular emphasis on detainee management. Prior to this, I had updated parliament on Afghanistan on four other occasions during 2011. This is my first report to parliament for 2012.
International commitment, transition and post-transition
I attended the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels on 4 February. Defence ministers met at a critical time for the international community’s commitment in Afghanistan ahead of the NATO/ISAF Leaders Summit in Chicago in May. Defence ministers continued their consideration of the international community’s post-2014 commitment to Afghanistan.
The international community has reached the point where key decisions now need to be made about the post-2014 international commitment in Afghanistan. A clear, consistent message about the future from NATO and ISAF is essential for Afghanistan, its neighbours—especially Pakistan—and also to send a clear message to the Taliban and insurgent groups.
Australia believes that there are three key decisions to be agreed at the Chicago leaders summit:
Firstly, to reaffirm—as defence ministers did in Brussels—the commitments on security transition the international community made in Lisbon, namely to transition to Afghan-led security responsibility across the country by 2014. Important progress has been made with the implementation of the first two tranches of districts and provinces to transition to Afghan-led security. When these two tranches of districts have transitioned, Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) will provide lead security for up to 50 per cent of the Afghan population.
As United States Secretary of Defense Panetta has recently noted, when the final tranche of districts and provinces commences transition to Afghan-led security in mid-2013, the international community and Afghanistan will have achieved a key Lisbon milestone. As both Secretary Panetta and NATO/ISAF defence ministers said in Brussels, ISAF forces will of course still need to be in support and prepared to undertake combat operations in support of the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) until the end of transition in 2014.
Secondly, at Chicago the international community and Afghanistan will need to determine and agree the size and shape of the ANSF that is sufficient to ensure and sustain security for Afghanistan in the longer term beyond 2014. Having determined this in consultation with the Afghan government, the cost of sustaining the ANSF needs to be agreed as well as a fair burden-sharing arrangement for consideration by the broader international community.
Thirdly, the international community must make an enduring commitment to Afghanistan. The NATO-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership and comparable bilateral national agreements—including with Australia—are an important start. Last month, President Karzai signed frameworks for cooperation between Afghanistan and the United Kingdom and other European partners, including France and Italy. Afghanistan and the United States are continuing to work towards their future strategic partnership framework. These partnership agreements represent an important evolution in the relationship between the government of Afghanistan and its international partners and reflect the international community’s long-term enduring commitment to Afghanistan.
As the Prime Minister said in her statement to parliament on 21 November last year, Australia also seeks an enduring relationship with Afghanistan beyond 2014. After 2014, Australia will maintain links with Oruzgan Province, but our role will necessarily have a more national focus. As well, the international community must, in the context of the Chicago summit, agree a basic mission profile of NATO-led, post-2014, post-ISAF engagement to support, assist and advise the ANSF to ensure stability is sustained beyond 2014 and to achieve our objective of never again allowing Afghanistan to be a training ground for international terrorism.
The mission profile necessary to achieve this could include but not necessarily be limited to:
In Brussels, I met senior NATO/ISAF Commanders and my Defence ministerial colleagues from Afghanistan and a number of NATO/ISAF contributing countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. The resounding view is that good security progress continues to be made on the ground in Afghanistan. We agreed that there has been positive momentum in the mission and that we must continue to consolidate security gains in 2012.
Although the circumstances continue to be difficult and dangerous, we are on track to transition to Afghan-led responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces by 2014. Combined Afghan National Security Forces and International Security Assistance Force operations continue to maintain gains over the insurgency, despite the high-profile attacks that ISAF has experienced during the past six months. These high-profile attacks have been used by the insurgency as propaganda to undermine the progress made and the confidence in the Afghan government and the International Security Assistance Force.
Combined Team Oruzgan: Progress in O ruzgan
Australia is committed to training and mentoring the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in Oruzgan Province to enable them to take on responsibility for security in Oruzgan by 2014. Australian forces continue to make steady progress in training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army. The 4th Brigade is increasingly assuming the lead for the planning, preparation and execution of tactical operations, allowing Australian forces to concentrate on mentoring and advising Afghan command and combat support functions.
The 4th Brigade is also demonstrating progress towards operating independently, with a number of infantry Kandaks (battalions) now expected to be capable of conducting independent operations during 2012. On current advice, the 4th Brigade as a whole is expected to be operationally viable and ready to take the lead for security by 2014, and possibly earlier. On that trajectory, there is an expectation that Oruzgan will be included in the third tranche of districts and provinces to transition to Afghan-led security responsibility. There is an expectation that the decision on the third tranche of transition will be made in the course of the first half of this year and that transition to Afghan-led security will then take place over the following 12 to 18 months.
Australian troops continue to work with our ISAF colleagues from the United States, Singapore and Slovakia in Combined Team Uruzgan. Australia’s mission to train the ANA 4th Brigade is progressing well, with an expanded Afghan influence throughout the province. Australian Mentoring Task Force-Three (MTF-3) handed over to Mentoring Task Force-Four (MTF-4) on 24 January. Over the eight months that MTF-3 conducted operations in Oruzgan, the level of Afghan National Security Forces competence grew, with the local forces becoming more and more independent in planning security operations.
The 4th Brigade is now leading operations with the MTF in tactical support and the majority of ANA patrols are now conducted independently. The 4th Brigade Headquarters and the 2nd Kandak are now assessed as being effective with advisor support. The Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) are more frequently conducting combined security operations, and are increasingly doing so without requests for direct International Security Assistance Force support. This has reduced the freedom of movement and activity of insurgents in Oruzgan.
Detainee Management update
Australia takes the issue of detainee management very seriously and has a robust framework for detainee management in Afghanistan. In developing our detainee management framework, Australia has had two priorities in mind. First, the critical need to remove insurgents from the battlefield, where they endanger Australian, ISAF and Afghan lives. Second, the need to ensure humane treatment of detainees, consistent with Australian values and our domestic and international legal obligations.
Australia’s detainee framework draws on applicable international standards and advice from international humanitarian organisations. Under the framework, detainees apprehended by the Australian Defence Force are either transferred to Afghan custody in Tarin Kowt or United States custody at the Detention Facility in Parwan or released if there is insufficient evidence to seek prosecution through the Afghan judicial system. Arrangements are in place with both the Afghan and US governments that include assurances on the humane treatment of detainees and access to those detainees by Australian officials and humanitarian organisations to monitor their continuing welfare.
Update on detainee allegations
Australia continues to make clear its commitment to open and transparent detainee arrangements in support of ADF operations in Afghanistan. Between 1 August 2010, when detainee management responsibility shifted to Australia from the Dutch, to 3 February 2012, Australian forces apprehended 1,200 detainees. Of these, 159 were transferred to Afghan custody at the National Directorate of Security (NDS) in Tarin Kowt or United States custody at the detention facility in Parwan. The remaining detainees were released following initial screening.
In the same period, the ADF captured 11 people who were subsequently released, then recaptured. Six of the individuals in question were released as there was insufficient evidence to warrant their continued detention. Of the remaining five detainees, there was sufficient evidence to warrant their transfer and prosecution. Two were subsequently transferred to US custody in Parwan, and three were transferred to Afghan custody in Tarin Kowt.
In the same period 71 allegations of detainee mistreatment have been made against the ADF. To date, 57 of these allegations have been fully investigated and found to have no substance. The remaining 14 allegations remain under review. These allegations and the outcomes of the investigations are reported to ISAF and relevant humanitarian organisations.
Deployment of an interrogation capability
In my November 2011 statement to parliament, I announced that the Australian government had approved the deployment of a team of nine, including six trained interrogators to Afghanistan, to question detainees apprehended by the ADF. On 1 February I announced this capability had deployed to Afghanistan and is now operational.
The deployment of this capability enables the ADF to play a greater role in the collection of vital information on the insurgency, and supports the protection of Australian and ISAF personnel as well as the local population.
Inquiry Officer Reports
When an Australian soldier is killed in combat an Inquiry Officer Report is prepared in order to determine the circumstances surrounding the death and any lessons learnt. A number of factors led to a delay in releasing Inquiry Officer Reports into combat deaths in 2010. An inquiry into a fatality requires careful consideration, however, it is clear that insufficient resources and priority were afforded to processing inquiry reports from 2010. There have regrettably been delays in the Inquiry Officer process in respect of a number of our fallen, most recently with the deaths of Privates Chuck, Aplin and Palmer.
The Chief of the Defence Force has apologised for this as have I. I do so again.
The CDF has put in place a number of measures to address the deficiencies identified in the lack of resources and priority attached to processing Inquiry Officer Reports within Defence. In addition to giving priority to closer oversight of the progress of reports, the steps underway to remediate the issues within the Commission of Inquiry Directorate are:
A regular Inquiry Watch Group has been established under a One Star Officer to coordinate efforts across Defence to progress combat inquiries and reduce delays. Defence is also reviewing procedural constraints to see if we can release information faster to the families of the fallen.
I have also reinforced with the Chief of the Defence Force and Vice Chief of the Defence Force that Defence and Army have to pay particular care to ensuring that families understand the processes involved, including the detailed processes involved prior to the report being presented to the minister for approval for release.
The past focus of the Inquiry Officer process has been on the public release of the Inquiry Officer Reports and reports have been released as a matter of course. In my view the focus now needs to be on the timely provision of the report to the family of the deceased. As such, I have asked Defence and Army to ascertain the wishes of the family with respect to the public release of the report.
As well, any decision to publicly release an Inquiry Officer Report rightly comes after weighing the wishes of the family members about publication and the public interest in the release of the report wider than family members and affected persons to the general public. Most recently, for example, there was a clear public interest in the public release on 2 February this year of the Inquiry Officer Report into the death of Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney during the Battle of Derapet on 24 August 2010.
There have been 32 combat fatalities in Afghanistan. Regrettably, Inquiry Officer Reports are outstanding for 15 fatalities dating back to 2010. Inquiry Officer Reports relating to six fatalities are currently under consideration with the families of the deceased. Inquiry Officer Reports relating to a further nine fatalities are in the process of preparation for presentation to families by Defence.
Once the Inquiry Officer Reports have been considered by the families, the reports will then be presented to the Minister for Defence for approval for release. I regard the wishes of the family so far as public release is concerned as a relevant material factor to consider in publication of the report beyond the family itself and others directly affected.
The changes Defence has made to the Inquiry Officer process will contribute to finalising a number of the Inquiry Officer Reports into combat deaths in the coming weeks and months.
I thank the House and I table a paper in conjunction with my ministerial statement.
I seek leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for 16 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Robert speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 16 minutes.
Question agreed to.
I rise to respond to the Minister for Defence's sixth update to the House. He made it very clear in March 2011 that he would seek to make timely, relevant responses on combat operations in Afghanistan. He made five of those ministerial statements in 2011, to his credit, and he continues to keep his word in keeping the parliament and, indeed, the nation up to date with the prosecution of those operations.
I note, Minister, that after the last time we spoke the Speaker's position changed with then Speaker Jenkins seeking to play a more fulsome role in the House. It is nice to see that the Speaker did not change when you spoke this time.
The coalition is very pleased to respond to the Minister for Defence on Afghanistan, this being our first time in 2012. As the minister rightly knows, the coalition offers wide, deep and lasting bipartisan support for the prosecution of combat operations and wider operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East area of operations. This bipartisan support is not conditional, except on the national interest. It is given freely based on mutual respect and trust. We acknowledge though, and we have stated conditionally and completely, that it is not a blank cheque for the government. We do expect to be kept updated, both publicly to the House and privately through the conventions of the minister-shadow minister relationship. I acknowledge the minister does both of those well. The coalition will be looking to return to Afghanistan this year as part of our annual due diligence as an opposition and I know the minister will offer every assistance in this task.
It is a critical year for combat operations, as the minister has well highlighted. As we look towards a metric-based commanders' judgment-led withdrawal by 2014, crucial decisions will need to be made and we will be looking for very strong leadership from the minister during the year, especially as the May NATO ISAF leaders summit in Chicago draws near.
I note the minister has outlined three key decisions he is looking for at the May summit: the reaffirmation of the Lisbon security transition commitments, namely the transition to Afghan-led security by 2014; secondly, to agree the size and the shape of the Afghan National Security Force required to maintain that security; and, of course, the broad enduring commitment from the international community to Afghanistan post transition. Consequently, it will be incumbent upon the minister, post the May meeting, to update the House on some areas of national interest that connect to and form a wider part of those three key commitments. I note also that in 2013 the nation will be having an election, so this anticipated, well-heralded and crucial transition will be undertaken at quite a challenging time in our national history. It is incumbent upon both sides of parliament to ensure that the highest priority is accorded to the transition arrangements, and the coalition pledges that it will ensure that every assistance will be given during that time.
From the perspective of the national interest, key things we will be looking for include actual metric based rules for Australia's withdrawal of the bulk of its combat force. What do those rules look like? What do the conditions look like? What are the key areas of the commander's judgment required to be? We note from previous discussions with the minister that, of the 30-odd forward-operating and patrol bases, fewer than 10 are now manned by Australians—the majority are now permanently manned by the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police, with Australians using mobile mentoring patrols extensively. Thus our transition is already occurring across Oruzgan.
We are keen to understand the likely force disposition which will remain in theatre post 2014 and the anticipated roles for those forces. Note that the coalition will continue to provide bipartisan support for a force retention post 2014, including for reconstruction, training, force protection and overwatch—including an offensive Special Operations Task Group, or SOTG, presence. I note the minister is continuing to look at areas such as training at the artillery school, which Australian gunners continue to run. We think that is a fine initiative and we also agree with the minister about joining with Her Majesty's military from Great Britain in looking to assist with the military academy in Afghanistan.
We are keen to understand the likely aid and related provincial reconstruction task activities and the quantum involved. We are keen to understand the nature of any proposed bilateral agreement between Australian and Afghanistan, as intimated by the Prime Minister on 21 November 2011, and the extent to which Australian assistance will be committed post 2014. The coalition believes strongly that the Al Minhad Air Base in Dubai should be retained and that every effort should be made to work with the government of the United Arab Emirates to achieve that. Clearly the stability of governments at provincial and national levels, including the challenges and opportunities that presents, is also of some interest. We believe there is considerable opportunity for our parliament to assist nations of the world, including Afghanistan, in setting up their parliaments, especially in the areas of processes, procedures, governance arrangements and the like. We are keen to understand Australia's preparedness to commit forces to restore stability in Afghanistan post 2014 if required and what such a commitment would look like.
I note the minister's confidence that it can be expected that Oruzgan province will transition to Afghan led security force control in the third tranche—expected, give or take, in mid 2013. I praise the minister's confidence and I note it is built on the blood, sweat and tears of our faithful Australian military, which has risen to every task the government of the day has set. In saying so, I thank the fine men and women of MTF 3, based around the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, and I wish the lads and lasses of the 9th Battalion, the bulk of MTF 4, the best as they continue in the fine tradition.
The coalition is under no illusion concerning the tough road to transition. Four of our fine men and women were killed in action and 10 wounded in action from green on blue attacks alone in 2011. Other nations suffered the same types of tragedies. It will be a difficult time; there is no question about it. I note from the minister's update that 1,200 suspects were detained between August 2010 and early February this year, with 159 transferred to either Afghan or US custody and 11 detainees released and recaptured. I also note that there were 71 allegations of detainee mismanagement but that none have been found to have substance. The bottom line is that our enemy is trying to exploit what they see as our weaknesses: our humanity, our rules of engagement and our belief in the rule of law—things that we as a parliament see as great national strengths. I note that we are above our enemy, with our greater moral set and our stronger values. We will continue to investigate allegations where they are raised. But our enemies should know that raising an allegation is not an easy path to achieving release from custody and a return to trying to assist the Taliban in their fight against Australian forces and the wider ISAF. We will continue to investigate allegations but we will not let them be a crutch to our enemy as they are seeking to make them.
Minister, I am pleased that, after I have continually asked you for 12 months, you have finally dispatched an interrogation capability—18 months after the military put up a cabinet submission. I note you have deployed nine people, including six interrogators. If my maths serves me right, with 1,200 detainees over, let us call it, 20 months, that is about 60 detainees a month—on average two per day. As a former trained interrogator, I know that interrogations might take four or five days. If there are only six interrogators—let us put them on a 12-hour shift—that is only three interrogators available at any one time. With two detainees coming in every day on average and with an interrogation taking four or five days, you might have three interrogators working across 10 detainees. I think our interrogators might be stretched. Minister, there may be room for adding a few more interrogators into the order of battle. I note the increase in initial screening from 96 hours to three days plus another three days if deemed necessary to complete the investigation. That is in line with our ISAF partners and the coalition supports it completely.
Minister, I note from your update on inquiry reports that we are still waiting for 15 reports—that is out of the 32 soldiers killed in action. I note the measures you have outlined to ensure that is being addressed—a senior Army lawyer to head up the commission of inquiry plus an admin chief of staff. The coalition agrees that not all reports should be publicly released, but we do demand that the families are provided with them expeditiously and that their views are considered in terms of wider release. We also hope that a clear chain of command is established to ensure that the families who are waiting for these 15 reports, some from 2010, are kept fully informed about any delays and what the military is doing to overcome them.
Minister, there is an issue of taxation which needs to be addressed. The international campaign allowance was legislated in 2001 by the previous government to remunerate defence members for warlike service. It is designed to compensate members for the environmental and dreadful factors of combat operations in specific international campaigns such as Slipper—as in Operation Slipper, Mr Speaker. The international campaign allowance is zoned according to three locations in the Middle East—Afghanistan; Iraq, which has subsequently ceased; and the wider maritime environment. The practice provides tax exemption to ADF members on warlike service. It has been around for 60-odd years, including Korea and Malaya, and is well understood and well supported.
Under section 23AD of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ADF members serving on warlike operations are exempt from tax on salaries and allowances they earn. For soldiers who are wounded in action, the tax exemption extends to periods of hospitalisation regardless of hospital location or duration. The challenge is that if a soldier is hospitalised but, for reasons of mental health or great concern for family, seeks to leave hospital but go back every single day to receive the care that they would otherwise have received, they are then penalised by virtue of the tax act. It has nothing to do with the minister or indeed elements of Defence; it occurs under the tax act because they have chosen for their own mental health or their own family care to leave hospital, even though they should have remained hospitalised. It is the coalition's contention that something needs to change to allow circumstances where the minister can approve the continuation of tax exempt status to allowances in such circumstances so that soldiers are not penalised if they should be in hospital but decide to go home and then travel back and forth.
Likewise, members who undertake escort duties for wounded soldiers or soldiers killed in action do so as a primary role and they are aware before they deploy that when an escort leaves an area of operations they are no longer providing warlike service and therefore they do not receive the tax exemption, even though they are ordered to leave the combat operation to escort home a wounded soldier or indeed a mate who has been killed in action. I note that on returning a range of allowances are paid such as travelling allowance, which is about half of what they would have received as a taxable amount if they were serving on operations. Again, it is the coalition's contention that there should be an option for the minister to overrule and make a determination in that area that would enable those on escort duties, or other duties, to continue to receive the allowances because they are operating under orders. Cases such as bringing wounded soldiers or those killed in action home could then also be taken into consideration. I will leave those issues with the minister. I know they are taxation issues and not defence issues and they are outside the minister's purview, but I am sure with great goodwill on both sides we can seek to address some of them.
I would like to raise one further issue. It is time for our nation to rise as one and begin to jointly own the support for the hundreds of our wounded warriors who are returning to our shores. It is time for our country to do something similar to what the British are doing through the establishment of their Help for Heroes foundation. Help for Heroes raises money to support members of the UK armed forces who have been wounded in the service of their country. It is a UK based charity specifically set up to help wounded service men and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Help for Heroes was founded by Bryn—an ex-serviceman—and Emma Parry in October 2007. The charity is strictly non-political and non-critical; they simply want to help wounded service men and women. They want to assist people who are currently serving or who have served in the armed forces, and their dependants. They want to promote and protect the health of those who have been wounded or injured while serving in the armed forces through the provision of facilities, equipment or services for their rehabilitation, and to make grants to other charities that assist members of the armed forces and their dependants. They consider anyone who volunteers to serve in time of war, knowing that they may risk all, is a hero. I think they are right. They believe these are ordinary people doing extraordinary things and some of them, and their families, will live with the consequences of their service for the rest of their life.
Help for Heroes asks supporters in the UK to simply 'do their bit' to show these extraordinary young men and women that they are cared for by the community. Help for Heroes has so far raised over £125 million—A$184 million. Of that, £107 million has gone directly to helping injured men and women of the UK armed forces. Projects include the rehabilitation complex at Headley Court, money for combat stress, adaptive adventure training, extension of the former North Wales Medical Centre and the creation of a £6 million quick reaction fund to support individuals in need, managed by the service charities. It has been able to spend close to the amount raised as it has also set up the wholly owned trading subsidiary Help for Heroes Trading Co., which sells merchandise and gifts in order to cover administrative overheads. The money is used for providing much needed services that aid wounded soldiers' recovery. The money both funds capital projects and provides individual support in conjunction with delivering charities. Individuals are encouraged to raise money through activities and fundraising events, from baking cakes and shaving heads to parachuting, walking and cycling. It is about encouraging a nation to embrace their own.
I propose a unity ticket between the government and the opposition for us to join together to see what we can do about setting up a foundation in Australia to give the community ownership. I know the support government provides is very good, and the coalition provides bipartisan support for it, but this is about the community; this is about us giving the community an opportunity to come together and help. This is the least we can do as our fighting men and women continue to do what they can to provide peace and security for our nation.
I thank the minister for his update. It is welcome. I thank him for his continued commitment to ensuring the House and indeed the nation is aware of the ongoing operations in Afghanistan.
On indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very happy to indicate to the member for Fadden that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs and I are very happy to take up the suggestions he has made about allowances and support in the community for our wounded warriors.
by leave—HMAS Success is a supply ship used for the supply of fuel, ammunition, food and stores to naval units at sea. In March 2009 Success left Sydney for a deployment to South-East Asia and China. Between March and May 2009, attention was drawn to incidents of unacceptable behaviour. Allegations included: inappropriate conduct towards women; workforce bullying; tribal culture on board the ship; drunken and disreputable behaviour while ashore; a breakdown in discipline; and serious failures of command. These incidents were the subject of an internal Defence inquiry, a Senate estimates examination and a Senate inquiry. In March 2010 the then Chief of the Defence Force commissioned Roger Gyles QC to conduct an independent commission of inquiry into these matters. On 22 February last year I tabled a redacted version of part one of the commission of inquiry report, which made very sorry reading about the failure of personal conduct, the failure of discipline, the failure of authority and the inappropriate culture aboard HMAS Success.
On 7 July last year I tabled a redacted version of part two of the commission of inquiry report, which dealt with Navy administrative inquiries, the management of three landed senior sailors, response to media queries and reporting, the treatment of the legal officer representing the landed senior sailors and Australian Defence Force Investigative Service investigations. Part two identified a number of very significant shortcomings in the management of the three landed senior sailors.
In January of this year I received part three of the commission of inquiry report. Part three deals with military discipline, redress of grievance processes, command decisions and administrative law, equity and diversity and unacceptable behaviour, and inquiry processes. It considers recent influences on the application of military justice and the implications of these for the exercise of command. Part three outlines a range of possible improvements to the conduct of inquiries, the application of military justice and administrative processes within the Australian Defence Force.
The recommendations of part three will be considered in the context of other reforms to the military justice system and the recent review by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into the management of incidents and complaints in Defence. I will table a redacted version of part three of Mr Gyles’s report. The redactions have been made on the basis of legal advice. As the majority of part three of the report deals with organisational rather than personnel issues, the redactions are minimal.
I have already provided a copy of the full report, unredacted, in confidence, to Senator Stephens, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Senator Eggleston, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee; and Senator Johnston, the shadow minister for defence. This satisfies undertakings made to keep the Senate fully informed of these matters.
The completion of part three of Mr Gyles’s report marks the completion of the HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry. The Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy have accepted the findings and recommendations of parts one and two and are taking action on those recommendations.
The administrative action required to be taken by Navy to hold individuals to account in respect of the shortcomings identified by Mr Gyles in parts one and two is nearing completion.
Adverse administrative action, including termination of service, formal censure, reduction in rank, formal warnings and formal counselling, was considered against 55 individuals and initiated against 18 individuals, who ranged in rank from able seamen through to star ranked officers. Decisions relating to nine of these individuals have been made. Some of these decisions are subject to the redress of grievance process but the outcomes have included formal censure, reduction in rank and formal counselling. In two instances no further action was considered warranted. I am advised that decisions relating to another four individuals will be made in the coming weeks.
The Chief of Navy has apologised to the senior sailors who were landed. Defence has offered compensation to the senior sailors in accordance with the recommendation made by Mr Gyles in part two of his report. This compensation process is ongoing, with Defence's position on compensation currently under consideration by the sailors and their legal representatives.
I table a redacted version of HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry Allegations of Unacceptable Behaviour and the Management Thereof, Part Three: Further Recommendations. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for five.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Fadden speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding five minutes.
Question agreed to.
This is the second time I have risen to speak in response to the Minister for Defence. My comments last time were intentionally short. They will be intentionally short again. I believe the Senate will have a range of comments to make regarding the issue. I note that the minister has maintained the promise by the previous defence minister to provide the unredacted copy to the Senate, which he has done. He has provided the full report to Senator Stephens, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Senator Eggleston, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee; and Senator Johnston. I also believe that he has honoured the promise of the last minister with respect to senior officers providing a briefing to senators as required, and I am sure the Senate will take the issue from there.
I move:
That Main Committee, private Members’ business, orders of the day No. 1 relating to Meals on Wheels, No. 3 relating to the Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grants program, No. 4 relating to White Ribbon Day, No. 5 relating to Tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea, No. 8 relating to Surf Lifesavers and No. 23 relating to Organ donation in Australia be returned to the House for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following orders of the day, private Members' business, being called on, and considered immediately in the following order:
Meals on Wheels;
White Ribbon Day;
Surf Lifesavers;
Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grants program;
Organ donation in Australia; and
Tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea.
Question agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to make a clarification. I think the clerk read out that this was a motion by the member for Lyons. Is it actually a motion by Mr Lyons, the member for Bass?
I think this was a typographical error. Mr Lyons, of course, was a former Prime Minister of this place and someone that should be admired. I know the Leader of the House would admire him. He was someone that left the Labor Party to pursue fiscal responsibility!
Come on now, the member for Casey! We have got a clarification. It is the motion of Mr Lyons, the member for Bass, not the member for Lyons. I thank the member for Barker for drawing that to the attention of the House.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the motion be amended to read—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) in the 2011 Budget, the Labor Government announced the extension of the Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grants program as part of its drought assistance measures;
(b) less than 6 weeks after the program was announced even after being boosted to $14 million, the Government announced that funds had run out;
(c) this Exit Grant was often the only means by which some farmers could exit their farms with sufficient support to transition to a new livelihood;
(d) some farmers who applied and were pre-assessed as eligible for the grant, proceeded to put their farms on the market, and had sold their farms through exchange of contracts, prior to the announcement that the funds had now run out; and
(e) some farmers, on the basis of the possibility of the Exit Grant support, have made financial commitments to buy alternative accommodation so they can transition to their new locality and employment; and
(2) calls on the Government to now provide payments through the Act of Grace process to farmers who had sold their farms through exchange of contracts by 10 August 2011.
I thank the government for being supportive of this amendment and understanding of the very extreme circumstances that a lot of our farmers are in, having survived the drought but not with any financial assets that give them the possibility of a new life beyond farming. These EC Exit Grants were of very great importance for their futures. We are now asking that people can access an act of grace payment. There are a number of them who managed to sell their farms at the time when the EC Exit Grants closed, prematurely—for example, after a few months. I wish for this amendment to be understood and accepted so that our farmers who are in this dreadful situation, who now have applications before the appropriate minister, will be made eligible for an act of grace payment to support them into a new life.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move, as an amendment:
That paragraph 3 be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
(3) notes both the Federal and Queensland governments have indicated they will terminate the tuberculosis clinics on Saibai and Boigu islands which currently provide vital tuberculosis surveillance and clinical care for Papua New Guinea nationals, and reduce the risk of the emergence of drug resistant strains of tuberculosis;
This is certainly a matter of life and death, particularly to people living in the western provinces of Papua New Guinea and, of course, those Torres Strait Islander Australians who are very near neighbours to Papua New Guinea. I thank the government for indicating their support for this and recognising the seriousness of this issue. Tuberculosis is now endemic in this region and we are seeing a rising death toll as the medications that are being used there are becoming less and less effective and because of the inadequate delivery of services, due in many cases to difficulty in access. While I appreciate that there is a need to eventually build capacity in Papua New Guinea so that they are able to deal with this problem, that is in fact a long way off and we are seeing deaths now on a regular basis as Papua New Guinean citizens struggle to get access to some level of support. It is critical that we continue to maintain the frontline services that are there. While it is great that we are looking at building capacity at the Daru Hospital, if you have a look at the geography of the area, to get access to those services in Daru people from some of the villages that are scattered to the west in the Western Province area have to travel to that hospital in an open dinghy because there are no roads. At times, they have to travel for up to 14 hours just to get access to those services. As such, it is important that we maintain services in island communities like Saibai and Boigu, which are less than a 15-minute dingy ride from the mainland of Papua New Guinea.
I appreciate the genuine attempt by the government to support this. I look forward to continued negotiations to ensure that we get a very positive outcome. The one thing that we cannot afford to do is to withdraw these services. We need to increase them significantly. I believe that there are alternative ways in which we can do that.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the motion.
The original question was that the motion be agreed. To this the member for Leichhardt has moved an amendment. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I present the report of the Publications Joint Committee. I move:
That the report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—Since the darkest days of the global financial crisis, I have regularly updated members on international developments and their implications for Australia. As I do so again today, I cannot assure the House that the outlook for the global economy is any less concerning than it was last time. Indeed, the global economy is in some respects in worse shape than it was last year. Germany and France, the locomotives of European growth and two of the major global economies, are both expected to have contracted in the fourth quarter of last year.
As Governor Stevens noted on Tuesday, growth in China has moderated as was intended, although indicators remain robust. But more broadly in Asia, we have seen some softening in growth. Of the major economies to have released fourth quarter GDP data, the US alone was a little stronger but even so, growth overall remains below trend and under threat from fiscal contraction. Responding to these developments, the IMF has again lowered its forecast for global growth in 2012.
So I cannot offer today an assurance that 2012 will not be as challenging as 2011 for the global economy. But recent actions in Europe, in particular by the European Central Bank, have settled markets somewhat and may have bought Europe and the global community a little space—space that must be used to tackle the underlying problem if further deterioration is to be avoided. Today, just as we should not hold out false optimism, we should never hold on to false pessimism. Despite the global economic challenges, our economy is very much the envy of the world—with solid growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, strong public finances, and a record pipeline of business investment. As the world’s 13th largest economy, we are also the world’s quiet achiever. We punch above our weight with an enviable record of achievement and the knowledge that our fundamentals will serve us well into the future.
Global and European outlook
The recovery from the deepest global recession since the Great Depression was always going to be long and difficult. But a combination of political gridlock and policy half-measures has turned a tough road towards prosperity into a perilous path. I have now been to 19 G20 meetings as Treasurer and the concerns among my colleagues as last year drew to an end were as grave as they were at the height of the global financial crisis. Fortunately, Europe has taken some recent positive steps forward. There is no doubt the active intervention of the European Central Bank—in particular extending the maturity of its lending to European banks—has helped to calm sentiment in recent weeks. The agreement of a new fiscal compact for Europe is also a step in the right direction. But more is needed given the scale and significance of the problems that Europe faces.
In November last year I outlined the government’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in the context of deteriorating global growth, which of course significantly impacted budget revenues. Our midyear update reflected the now widely held view that the euro area is entering recession, an assessment with which the IMF and World Bank have agreed. Sovereign governments in Europe need to take credible action to put their budgets on a sustainable footing in the longer-term. But fiscal austerity alone is not the answer to Europe’s problems. Economic growth in Europe is crucial to achieving debt sustainability. But to achieve stronger growth, Europe must embark on a wide ranging package of structural reforms. These are the tough reforms which Australia has long since introduced—like opening up sectors to competition and reforming pension systems. While this is primarily a European crisis, it cannot be assumed that Europe’s solutions alone will safeguard the world economy. The economic policy choices of the rest of the world are also critical for the global outlook. In the United States, President Obama is trying to introduce measures to support growth and jobs, while putting his budget on a sustainable medium-term path. The United States and the global economy would be well served if Congress put away its partisan politics and got behind the President’s plans.
Closer to home, near-term growth prospects in Asia remain healthy, although the region is also not immune from European developments. Although weaker global demand has weighed on regional growth, China continues to perform solidly. And, underlying all of this, the shift in global economic weight continues to move from West to East. Increasingly, it is our region that is driving global growth in this, the Asian Century. For the first time in our history Australia finds itself in the right part of the world at the right time. We can make our future the Australian Century in Asia, not just Australia in the Asian Century.
Australia
Despite our bright prospects, no economy remains untouched from the fallout from Europe. Ours is no exception. As I outlined in the midyear update, we have seen the European crisis impact on our economy and budget. We have seen global turbulence create volatility in our share market, dampen confidence and unsettle consumers and businesses. Households have become more cautious, and businesses more hesitant in their hiring decisions.
While reflecting our relative economic strength, the high dollar is also a pressure point for our trade exposed industries, such as tourism and manufacturing. Despite these headwinds, our budget is on track for surplus in 2012-13, well ahead of our peers. Through discipline, and the right policy decisions, we have kept our economy strong, fought off recession and secured jobs even in the worst global conditions of our lifetime. Every member of this House should be proud of what our country and our people have achieved throughout this difficult period.
As most of the developed world braces for the prospect of weak or negative growth, we are expecting trend growth—higher than every single major advanced economy. As we saw in the most recent quarterly National Accounts, our economy recorded impressive growth of one per cent in the September quarter. We have seen over 700,000 jobs created since Labor was elected—that is over 700,000 more Australians going home with a pay check—while unemployment queues have grown in Europe and the US. Our unemployment rate is low at just 5.2 per cent, compared to10.4 per cent in the Euro area and 8.3 per cent in the United States.
For the first time in Australia’s history, all three global ratings agencies have awarded us the gold-plated AAA credit rating—something never achieved by any previous government. We cannot lose sight of these strengths, which is why it is so disappointing that some members of this House have sought to talk our economy down and undermine confidence, putting Australian jobs at risk.
Our strong fundamentals mean we are uniquely placed to deal with the worst that the world can throw at us. Our forecasts recognise that we will continue to see uncertainty and volatility in financial markets. But, of course, if global conditions take another turn for the worst, this will hit our revenues and obviously make it harder to return to surplus—that is just plain common sense.
We have already seen $140 billion ripped from government revenues due to global instability, including $20 billion in the six months between last year’s budget and the mid-year update. And we have a tax-to-GDP ratio at levels well below that which was left by the Howard government. As the Prime Minister said recently, we are committed to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13—we are determined to deliver it, and we will deliver it. Putting the budget into surplus will preserve our existing strong credibility with global financial markets and increase the scope for our independent Reserve Bank to ease monetary policy should conditions require.
Global e ngagement
While the fundamentals of our economy are sound, every Australian has an interest in the global community working to put an end to the rolling global economic crisis. That is why later this month in Mexico I will again meet with my G20 colleagues to push for global action. As I have said, the solutions primarily must come from Europe, but the global community has a role to play. At Cannes last November, the Prime Minister along with other G20 Leaders, announced an Action Plan for Growth and Jobs, which outlined the policies G20 countries have committed to pursue to secure strong, sustainable and balanced growth. In 2012, the G20 must hold firm to those commitments.
A global firewall—in the form of an adequately-resourced IMF—alongside a strengthened European firewall will also boost confidence and prevent contagion spreading from Europe to the rest of the world. And that is the message I will take to Mexico, along with the message about the strength of the Australian economy.
Conclusion
Australia's economic fundamentals are rock solid. The Gillard government’s objective is to turn this economic strength into a stronger community as well; to create wealth and spread opportunity with policies that help ensure Australians under cost of living pressures feel the benefits of the Asian Century and the mining boom, not just a fortunate few. It is why we are not only returning the budget to surplus but also investing in the critical skills and infrastructure our economy needs. It is why we are cutting tax on small businesses and corporates. It is why we are investing in national superannuation and building a savings pool for our economy and a more secure retirement for our people. And it is why we are putting a price on carbon pollution to drive investment in a clean energy future.
Australia’s success and resilience over the last four years is not due to luck. We are a young, optimistic nation, and we stand ready to capitalise on our opportunities and show the rest of the world what is possible.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for North Sydney to speak for 12 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Hockey speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 12 minutes.
Question agreed to.
In the first ministerial speech from the Treasurer in 2012 I was expecting to hear something a little different. There is no doubt that the global economy continues to face significant challenges, but I take exception to the Treasurer's assessment that the global economy is in worse shape than it was last year.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right are interjecting from outside their places.
The situation in Europe remains parlous and the spectre of unmanageable sovereign debt still hangs over financial markets, but this is not new news. Europe is an ongoing slow-motion train wreck. The difficulties will not be resolved quickly, and uncertainty and volatility can be expected to continue for years, perhaps even for decades.
Recent news from the United States, particularly on the labour market, provides hope that the United States might finally be entering a period of a sustainable recovery, although I recognise that it is early days yet.
More relevant to the prospects for Australia, China appears to be engineering a soft landing, against expectations in some quarters that the difficulties in Europe would also derail the Chinese dragon. I also note that there has been a significant shift in the attitude of China towards the IMF, and in part I expect that that is a recognition by China that they are more vulnerable to an economic downturn in Europe than they first thought.
Financial markets can provide a more timely reading of economic health than the official statistics on economic activity, which in part lag, and they are telling us that overall the global environment does not seem to be as parlous as it was in the closing months of 2011. The Reserve Bank notes in its latest monthly statement:
Financial market sentiment, though remaining skittish, has generally improved since early December. Share markets have risen and term funding markets have re-opened, including for Australian banks …
So I am a little surprised that the Treasurer scoffed at my earlier statement, given that he completely contradicts his own Governor of the Reserve Bank.
The Treasurer regularly accuses the coalition of talking down the economy. In this case, however, it is the Treasurer who seems to be putting, very publicly, a gloomy spin on the global situation. I am led to wonder why he would do that. The answer is clear. In his statement, the Treasurer refers to the Australian budget surplus five times—a surplus he has never actually delivered. That is right: this ministerial statement to the House is titled 'Ministerial statement on the global economy', yet the Treasurer manages to work in references to the domestic budget surplus he has never delivered, no less than five times. I can only conclude that he wants to link these two aspects so that if he fails to deliver his promised surplus in 2012-13—which we will find out in September 2013, of course—he can just blame the global environment. He blames everyone else for everything that goes wrong in this world. He never accepts personal responsibility for his own actions.
I note that the Treasurer's original commitment to a surplus remains a determination. However, given that he has been boxed in by his own Prime Minister with a 'we will deliver a budget surplus', I look forward to the $38 billion fiscal consolidation that he is going to achieve in one year. In one year he is going to achieve $38 billion of fiscal consolidation. He talks about $70 billion over four years. He is going to be the miracle man and do it all in one year! We look forward to that fiscal consolidation.
This is why the government makes Australia more vulnerable than it should be. It overpromises and underdelivers. Labor constantly blames the global financial crisis for its economic mismanagement. It seems to think it is the only government that has ever faced economic turmoil. Well, the coalition government did not have it too easy either.
We faced the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, when most of our major trading partners were in recession or depression, unlike now, when our major trading partners have delivered us the best terms of trade in our economic history. It does have an impact on our economy. At that time—because I was there at that time, I well remember the Asian financial crisis—investors fled the region and fled Australia. There was a widespread expectation that Australia would be sucked into the morass. And of course we had the dot-com bust in the early 2000s, which led to a near recession in the developed world. On top of all of that, we had the worst drought in 100 years. So Australian agriculture was hit, Australian mining exports were hit and our export markets were in recession or depression, and at that time the Australian government continued to keep the Australian economy growing. We guided Australia through those difficult episodes with a sure hand and sound policies that were consistent. And do you know what? We were not biting away at each other on leadership issues the way the Labor Party are.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
How it undermines confidence when we have old Bill here—old Bill wants to go for the job; he is hoping he is the third man. Old Swannie has threatened to resign should the PM go. And where is Kevin? The Labor Party are so committed to the jobs of Australians that they are only worried about their own, while we are worried about the jobs of everyday Australians, the jobs that the Labor Party just do not care about. They are only focused on their own jobs. From our perspective, good governments focus on the challenges to the economy today. They focus on consistency in policies, and that is what matters at a time of global uncertainty. The government cannot keep using everything as an excuse not to get their own house in order and not to have consistent policy. We know global times are tough. As I have said on numerous occasions, they may well be tough, volatile in fact, for the next 20 years. We get that. But we want everyone else to understand that. And the best way to inoculate the Australian economy is to have consistent policies, stable leadership and a focus on inoculating our economy so far as you can against volatility in the rest of the world. A prudent Treasurer would adjust his fiscal settings to take account of this new reality, and he would do that by reducing spending to less than revenue to achieve a solid surplus.
This Treasurer is trying to ride the wave of the best terms of trade in 100 years into a budget surplus. It is not because he is cutting back on expenditure. No, the Public Service has increased by more than 20,000 since Labor was elected here in Canberra. But I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if you expect Australians to be careful with their money, to be prudent, then the government has to lead. That is hugely important in a range of areas. Let us remind ourselves of what Labor inherited from the coalition: the lowest unemployment rate in a generation. I was the minister for employment that left Labor in February 2008 with an unemployment rate of four per cent, the lowest in at least 20 years. Under Labor the unemployment rate has risen to 5.2 per cent.
As the Treasurer knows, the participation rate is actually falling, which means that if you look at the Roy Morgan research on employment there is going to be over the next few months potentially a significant increase in unemployment. From October 2011 to December 2011 some 37,000 jobs were lost within the Australian economy, leaving the number of people employed in December 2011 slightly less than a year before. That is right—there were no new jobs created in net terms in 2011. This is the first time in 20 years that there has been no net job growth—the first time in 20 years and the government are praising themselves as good economic managers.
Compare this with the record of the coalition. We inherited from Labor an unemployment rate of 8.7 per cent and more than halved it. We increased jobs in every year we were in office, even during the Asian financial crisis. Despite the global travails we faced, we improved the employment prospects for everyday Australians. That is what good governments do.
The Treasurer said he is pleased about the AAA rating. Well, we are pleased about the AAA rating because it is built on our efforts, it is built on our surpluses, it is built on our Future Fund, it is built on our low unemployment, it is built on the productivity in the Australian economy that this mob inherited and they continue to waste away. When it comes to Labor, you need to look carefully at what they do, not what they say. I can say that this is a Treasurer who said he is fiscally prudent. How embarrassing it is for him that at the last budget he said the budget was about jobs, jobs, jobs. He scurried out of the studio with Fran Kelly the other day after saying, 'Well, we are not going to achieve that jobs growth of the last budget, of course we are not. We said there would be 500,000 jobs created. It will be much lower than that.' At the same time he said the budget deficit for this current year would be $22 billion—and, miraculously, it is $37 billion. So he rabbits on about a $70 billion hole. This year alone, in six months, he has deteriorated the budget by $15 billion—in just six months. Not four years; six months, old sunshine. And they are accusing us of fiscal irresponsibility.
Now he says he is going to have the largest fiscal consolidation in Australian history since the early 1950s and he is doing it, he will claim, by cutting back on government expenditure. If he does it he is riding the wave of the best terms of trade in 100 years, but the structural deficit remains. The pain for Australians is down the track because this is a government that is engaged in the greatest waste of taxpayers' money in modern Australian history. Cheques for $900 to dead people, school halls where people did not want them and pink batts in homes where they did not want them or that caused death. This is the waste of Labor. And when it comes to consistency, particularly on the car industry, don't give us a lecture: it was the Labor Party that announced a green fund of over $1 billion and it was the Labor Party that ripped over $800 million out of it. So when it comes to good government you need fiscal consolidation, you need consistency of policy and you need strong leadership. (Time expired)
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Social Security and other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill will give effect to important reforms contained in the Building Australia's Future Workforce package announced in the 2011-12 budget. These measures will provide greater incentives and support for young Australians to engage in education, training and employment and will reward single parents who re-engage in the workforce.
Around 320,000 Australians, or 10 per cent of the Australians aged between 15 and 24, are not in education, training or employment and many young people face challenges entering the workforce. Australia's strong economic fundamentals and balanced approach to the challenges of the past four years have seen the economy grow steadily. With the unemployment rate expected to stay reasonably low, there is an opportunity for many more young people to find work given the right encouragement and support. The Australian government wants to ensure that our young people get the best possible start to their adult life. A good education and a connection with the workforce are critical to achieving this goal. Census data shows that people of prime working age who have competed year 11 or 12 have an unemployment rate less than those whose highest educational level was year 10 or less. That is why the Australian government is introducing changes to Youth Allowance and Newstart Allowance that will provide greater incentives for young Australians to engage in study or paid work, and reduce their reliance on welfare.
Under the Building Australia’s Future Workforce reforms 21-year-old job seekers will receive youth allowance from 1 July 2012. Currently these young people may be eligible for newstart allowance. This means that the same rate of income support payment will apply to 21-year-olds whether they are unemployed, training or a student.
The Earn or Learn participation requirements will also be extended to include 21-year-olds on youth allowance who do not have a year 12 or equivalent qualification. This will mean that they will have to participate in a combination of education, training or other approved activity, such as paid work (usually for 25 hours per week) until they turn 22.
Through other measures announced in the 2011-12 budget, the government is assisting young people to strengthen their foundation skills, through Transition Support for Early School Leavers and more places in the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program, as well as to take up career opportunities in the trades.
From 1 January 2012, more generous family tax benefit A assistance provides support for eligible families with children in their final years of school. These changes will provide greater opportunities for these young people through education and training and remove the incentive to stop studying and instead receive unemployment benefits.
Young people who take up work will be rewarded more for their efforts. From 1 July 2012 job seekers receiving youth allowance will be able to earn more and still retain their payment. The income-free level will be increased from $62 a fortnight to $143 a fortnight and the working credit limit will be increased three-and-a-half fold from $1,000 to $3,500. This means that young job seekers will be able to earn more than twice as much before their income support payments are affected. To ensure that all young people under similar circumstances are in receipt of the same income support payment, changes will also be made to the age requirements for sickness allowance, the youth disability supplement and the longer term income support rate for students.
The Building Australia’s Future Workforce Package also includes important changes to income support payments for parents to provide greater incentives and opportunities for parents, particularly single parents, to re engage in the workforce and share in the benefits that work brings. With around 520,000 dependent children in jobless families at risk of the social and economic disadvantage that is associated with joblessness, this is more critical than ever.
The government is making a number of changes to parenting payment to encourage parents with school-age children to re-enter the workforce sooner and to ensure greater consistency in the parenting payment eligibility rules. Since 1 July 2011, children born to or coming into the care of parents who have been receiving parenting payment since before July 2006 have not extended these parent’s eligibility for payment. From 1 January 2013, these parents will cease to qualify for parenting payment when their youngest eligible child turns 12 or 13 in 2013, or 12 in subsequent years, rather than the current 16. Current recipients whose youngest eligible child was born before 1 January 2000 will be exempt from this change.
We need to act now to ensure that these parents have the opportunity to benefit from our growing economy, to increase their self-sufficiency and achieve greater financial security, and to provide their families with good working role models. This is why the government is reforming the income test that applies to single principal carer parents on newstart allowance. The introduction of a more generous income test will allow these parents to earn over $400 more per fortnight before they lose eligibility for payment. This will provide stronger incentives for parents to undertake paid work by allowing parents to retain more of their income support as their employment income rises.
To ensure that individuals and families, particularly those affected by the parenting payment changes, are not disadvantaged when transitioning to new payment arrangements, the government is streamlining the claim provisions that apply to newstart allowance. This change will enable claims for newstart allowance to be lodged up to 13 weeks prior to the day on which the person will become qualified, in line with the rules that apply to other income support payments. This will not change the date from which newstart allowance is paid; it will however provide a smoother claim process for those transferring to newstart allowance.
In recognition that affected parents are likely to have spent significant periods on income support and out of the workforce, the government is also providing additional support for these parents to ease their transition back into the workforce. This includes additional training places and community based support for single parents as well as access to professional career advice through Job Services Australia providers. The government believes that together these changes provide parents with the right balance of support and incentives to make the most of the employment opportunities available, to find meaningful work and provide themselves and their families with a better future.
An important element in the way that support is provided to job seekers is the job seeker participation requirements and compliance arrangements. These arrangements help job seekers move off income support and into paid employment by reinforcing education, vocational training, and work experience opportunities. To simplify the compliance framework and reinforce the requirement that job seekers move towards gaining a skill and getting a job, the different daily penalty amounts for short-term financial penalties will be aligned at one-tenth of a job seeker’s participation payment. This will simplify the compliance framework and ensure job seekers are not penalised because a weekend happens to fall before they can re-engage.
The bill also makes a minor technical amendment to a cross reference in a rate calculator in the Social Security Act.
Finally this bill will amend the Indigenous Education Targeted Assistance Act 2000 to provide the appropriation to fund the 12 months extension of the Student Education Trusts measure as part of the extension of the Cape York Welfare Reform Trials announced by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in 2011. The Student Education Trusts are a financial management service which supports and encourages parents and care-givers from the remote Indigenous communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge on Cape York in Far North Queensland to save for their children’s education costs from the early years through to tertiary education. The trusts are an important part of the Closing the Gap strategy in Indigenous education in Far North Queensland.
The changes in this bill form an important part of the income support reforms included in the government’s Building Australia’s Future Workforce Package. These reforms will encourage more Australians to participate in and share in the benefits of paid work, equip them with the necessary skills to improve their future employment prospects and will result in more consistent treatment of income support recipients and better support and assistance to parents and job seekers.
Debate adjourned
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate on the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. This bill is a further demonstration of the government's commitment to reform the parliamentary entitlements framework. In 2009 the government commissioned an independent committee, the Committee for the Review of Parliamentary Entitlements, chaired by Ms Barbara Belcher AO, to review parliamentary entitlements. On 24 March 2011 I tabled the committee's report and introduced the Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which restored the power of the independent Remuneration Tribunal to determine parliamentary base salary of parliamentarians conclusively. On that day I also agreed to the tribunal's request that it consider the other recommendations of the Belcher committee's report and to make recommendations on parliamentarians' tools of trade and other entitlement issues. The tribunal released its initial report of the review of the remuneration of members of parliament on 15 December 2011 and the government moved immediately to accept the recommendations of the report that the Life Gold Pass scheme be closed prospectively, that the travel entitlements of Life Gold Pass holders be reduced and that the link between additional pensions under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme, the 1948 scheme and the additional salaries for serving parliamentary officeholders and ministers be severed.
This bill proposes to implement those recommendations. Once this bill takes effect, the Life Gold Pass scheme will be closed to those who enter or re-enter the parliament. The travel entitlement of existing Life Gold Pass holders who have never held office as Prime Minister and their spouses or de facto partners will be reduced from 25 to 10 domestic return trips per financial year from the 2012-13 financial year. I have already indicated that sitting senators and members will remain eligible to accrue an entitlement to a Life Gold Pass when they serve the remainder of their relevant qualifying period prior to leaving the parliament. Further, a sitting senator or a member who ceases to be a member of their House and who becomes a member of the other chamber within three months will be regarded as having had continuous service in the parliament and will continue to be eligible for a Life Gold Pass.
In accordance with the tribunal's recommendations that the travel entitlement of a Life Gold Pass holder be reduced immediately, the bill includes a transitional provision which limits the number of domestic return trips for the remainder of 2011-12 to a maximum of two. The provision will apply from the latter day on which the bill receives royal assent or from 1 April 2012. As I indicated earlier, serving ministers of state and parliamentary office holders receive additional salaries as a percentage of their parliamentary base salary. Any increase in the parliamentary base salary determined by the tribunal would flow to ministers of state and parliamentary office holders. The measures in this bill limit any windfall gains from increases in the additional salaries of office holders and of ministers of state flowing to the superannuation benefits of current and former parliamentarians. These measures complement similar arrangements approved by parliament last year in the Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011 in relation to increases in the parliamentary base salary for members of parliament.
The reforms to the parliamentary entitlement framework set out in this bill will contribute to an effective, efficient and transparent system of remuneration and entitlements and will help build the Australian public confidence in the parliamentary entitlements system. I thank all those members and senators from across the parliament for the cooperative way in which they have assisted in the construction of this response to audit reports, the Belcher report and the Remuneration Tribunal's decisions. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Today we are debating a betrayal of the Australian people, a betrayal of the 11 million Australians who pay for private health insurance. Betrayal is becoming a constant of this government and certainly of this Prime Minister because today Labor is breaking yet another promise made to the Australian people—a promise that they put in writing, a promise that Labor was committed to retaining rebates on private health insurance and a promise that is clearly not worth the paper that it is written on. Labor's words are worthless. Here is the commitment in writing that Labor made to the Australian Health Insurance Association, the commitment that they are seeking to break today, and it reads in part as follows. It is a letter by the then Prime Minister. It says:
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
Federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare levy surcharge. Labor will maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance, including the process for approval of premium increases. Zero per cent premium adjustment is not Labor policy.
The letter goes on to say:
I understand Nicola Roxon's office has also confirmed with you that Federal Labor has no plans to require private health insurance funds to make equivalent payments to public hospitals for patients who elect to be treated as private patients.
I trust this allays your concerns.
The letter said, quite sincerely:
Federal Labor values its relationship with the private health insurance sector and we look forward to this continuing regardless of the election outcome.
It was signed by the then Prime Minister.
Yes, this is a government that has difficult economic situations, largely of its own making. Yes, this is a government that has wasted billions and billions of Australian taxpayer dollars and, yes, it is seeking to find ways to plug that black hole because we know that the Labor Party simply cannot manage money. Instead of cutting back on some of that largesse, it is attacking millions of Australians who hold private health insurance cover. People who are listening to this debate should know that as a direct result of this broken election promise, of this betrayal by the Labor Party, that right across the country they will be paying more for their private health insurance premiums.
I will provide some statistics to the House so that people can understand how significant a policy private health insurance is in this country and why it is absolutely essential for us as a nation to maintain good balance between investment in the private and public sector. All Australians know—it does not matter which state you come from—public hospitals and the public hospital system, and the delivery of health services in an ageing community, are under pressure.
So why would we as a nation seek to collapse private health insurance in this country, to see those people flee their private health insurance cover and to go on waiting lists, to join those in emergency departments who are waiting hours in the middle of the night? Why would we put extra pressure on a system that already cannot cope with the strain that is under? Why would the Labor Party pursue this policy—because it is bad policy? The simple reason is not for a health outcome but for an economic outcome.
There are approximately 12 million Australians who now have private health insurance—that is, 52.9 per cent of the population. Of those, 10.3 million people—or 45.6 per cent—have hospital treatment cover; 5.6 million people with private health insurance have an annual household income less than $50,000 and 3.4 million have an annual household income of less than $35,000. I will dwell on that statistic for a moment. What the Labor Party wants the Australian public to believe is that private health insurance that covers half the nation is somehow a playground of the rich. But when you look at the statistics it does not bear that out. This is not the only statistic that the Labor Party seeks to misrepresent in this debate.
The figures and the facts bear out that many Australians, particularly older Australians, seek to cover their health needs with private health insurance for peace of mind, particularly those who are frail and ageing who might be on a part-pension or who are self-funded retirees who have worked hard all of their lives. They want to make sure that they cover their insurance risk when it comes to their own health. They should be helped up, not pulled down, as a result of the decision they have made.
Of that 5.6 million people with private health insurance with an income of less than $50,000—that is not a separate income but a household income—those people are also made up of young families who might be entering the workforce at a young age and are encouraged to take up private health insurance; they might be young families who are having a child for the first time, or a second or third child, and decide that they want to have private health insurance coverage. These are people who make a sacrifice to provide for their own future to secure their health and that of their families, yet this Labor government seeks to impose an extra financial burden on them if they keep their private health insurance.
Private hospitals treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia, so they share the load. There is, as I say, an investment that needs to be made in the public hospital system, and that will continue under this government as it will under an incoming coalition government after the next election, as it did under the Howard and Keating and Hawke governments. It will continue into the future.
It is important to recognise that private hospitals do treat a lot of patients in this country. In 2009-10, private hospitals treated 3½ million patients. They performed the majority of elective surgery in Australia—almost two in three cases are treated in private hospitals. The number of people with private health insurance increased 75 per cent under the previous coalition government, from 6.1 million to over 10.7 million Australians, and that is a very important point to dwell on for a moment. When Labor was last in power in the period from 1983 to 1996, they sought to do then what they are seeking to do now—that is, to trash the private health insurance industry in this country. That was the stated outcome of the Labor Party when they were last in government because they wanted to try to fool the Australian people in to believing, as I say, that private health insurance is only in the domain of those on high incomes.
When we came to government in 1996, it was at a critical point in this debate. People had dropped out of private health insurance and they were continuing to drop out because the Labor Party sought to destroy the product that Australians saw as being valuable to them and their families. So, it is again that we see a Labor government set on a course to try to destroy the private health insurance system in this country. It is interesting to look at the history of private health insurance in this country. On 1 July 1997, the Medicare levy surcharge of one per cent of taxable income was introduced for higher income earners who do not take out private health insurance. In January 1999, we had the introduction of a 30 per cent rebate. The percentage of Australians with private hospital cover increased from 30.6 to 43 over the next 12 months. In July 2000, we had the Lifetime Health Cover initiative and, in April 2005, the higher rebates for older persons. In September 2007, the then Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, issued a press release which said:
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates … The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates. This is absolutely untrue
This shows that her words were hollow, not just in this regard but also in many other debates about health over the course of the last few years.
Earlier I read out the letter which was issued on 20 November 2007 by the then Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd. This is a person who looked the Australian people in the eye and said to them that these changes we are debating in the parliament today would never see the light of day. Both Nicola Roxon as the shadow health minister and Kevin Rudd as opposition leader made it very clear to the Australian people—whether they believed it or not at the time, I do not know—that these changes were not ever going to beset the Australian public. No wonder the Australian public is furious with the Labor government at the moment. It is because there has been betrayal and lie after betrayal and lie. That has been the modus operandi of this government. On 24 February 2009, Minister Roxon stated:
The government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.
On 12 May 2009, private health insurance changes were announced in the budget. So, somehow, between February 2009, when Nicola Roxon was still stating that the government was strongly committed to the rebates, and the May budget—a matter of only three months—she backflipped on her position.
Not only did they lie to the Australian people during the election campaign; they went on to lie to the Australian people in February 2009, when Nicola Roxon expressly stated these changes would not happen. But then, in the May budget, they did. Later in that month of May, the bills were introduced into the House of Representatives. They went down in the Senate in September. The bills were reintroduced in November 2009 and they again went down in the Senate in March 2010. In July the bills were introduced for a third time.
What will the impact of the changes be? Some 2.4 million people will be directly affected by these changes. Those people will face immediate increases in their premiums of 14 per cent, 29 per cent or 43 per cent, depending on their income tier. Think about that for a moment. Australian families are facing great uncertainty in the workplace. People do not know whether or not their job is secure. People are seeing their overtime cut back. People are seeing cost-of-living pressures increase for their families or for their small businesses. People are facing a time of great uncertainty—when they watch TV at night they see Europe going into meltdown and the United States in great economic difficulties. Yet, at that very time, the government is saying that it is okay for them to introduce legislation which will lead to an effective increase in premiums of anywhere between 14 per cent and 43 per cent for people who have private health insurance cover—half the nation. That comes on top of this government seeking to introduce the world's biggest carbon tax, when no other economy in the world is imposing such a wet blanket on its economy.
The government-owned insurer, Medibank Private, has predicted that 37,000 of its members alone will drop their cover as a result of these changes. In addition—and this is the importance statistic—they predict that 92,500 will downgrade their cover. The minister claimed that across the whole system—not just across the Medibank Private membership but across everyone who holds private health insurance—only 27,000 would drop their coverage. Yet Medibank Private, the government-owned insurer, said that 37,000 of their own membership base—forget about those in BUPA or NIB or the other funds—will drop out of Medibank Private.
So I think the government are left with very little credibility, both because of the fact that they lied to the Australian people on successive occasions in relation to this matter and because their statistics cannot be relied upon at all. It is interesting to look at some independent analysis of the changes—the Deloitte analysis, for argument's sake. They predict that, in the first year, 175,000 people would withdraw from private hospital cover and a further 583,000 people would downgrade their private cover. Over five years, they predict that 1.6 million Australians would drop cover and 4.3 million would downgrade their cover.
This is, I think, at the crux of the difficulty the government are creating. This is a government which take solutions and turn them into problems. Look at the way border protection has been mismanaged over the course of the last four years. Look at the way this government took the bucket of money we left them and spent it, thrusting our economy and the Australian public into enormous debt. Look at the way they have mismanaged policy after policy—this is just the latest example.
In our country we have a universal health system. That means that, regardless of whether you earn one dollar or a million dollars a year, if you have a heart attack, are involved in a motor vehicle accident, have a crook hip, need oncology treatment or whatever, you can turn up at a public hospital and demand treatment free of charge. That has been an underlying principle supported by both sides of this parliament for a very long period of time—and long may that be the case. A universal systems says to people that, in a country like ours in the 21st century, the best available services will be provided. Yet this government is driving people out of private health insurance. Given that, even if they are on high incomes, people can receive care for free in the public system, why would you seek to drive those 175,000 people out of private hospital cover into the public system—adding extra pressure to that system which already has many people waiting?
It makes no sense. Why would the government not seek, as we did when we were in government, to leverage off people's own private investment so that ultimately it costs the taxpayer less to insure those in private health insurance who otherwise would be receiving so-called free care in the public system—a cost ultimately met by the Australian taxpayer in any case?
The other important statistic in the Deloitte report—it has been borne out in other reports—is that over half a million people will downgrade their insurance. What does that mean? It says to younger people, by way of example, that you do not believe you are going to need cover for cardiology, or you are not going to need cover for a hip replacement, so you seek out those exclusions in your policy and that will make your policy cheaper, particularly in a situation where the government is going to drive up premiums. People will look to cut out of their policy what they think will not be applicable to them. With any insurance cover, trying to pick and choose what event will happen or what event needs to be covered is a very dangerous experiment. People—and Deloitte recognises this but the government by its own admission has not even modelled it—will downgrade their insurance by excluding some coverage so they can afford the increase in premiums that the government is going to impose upon them. Those people will seek out those services in the public hospitals. They will line up with people who have no chance of affording private hospital cover or private health insurance. That will make things more difficult for those who are most in need, who should be accessing services in our public hospitals. That is one of the greatest outrages of the bill before the House. Any rational thinking Australian or contributor to this debate would recognise that this government is on a slippery slope. It is quite easily described as being completely out of control.
If we drive Australians from the private health sector into the public sector a couple of things will happen. The first people to leave private health insurance will be the youngest and those who do not believe they need the cover. This will have an impact on all Australians who hold private health insurance, and indirectly it will impact on every Australian because those who do not have private health insurance will access their health needs through the public system. If you are a 21-year-old and you have pressures at the moment because you have had your overtime cut back at work or you have other cost-of-living pressures, you will start to look to cut back on discretionary spending. You will say you cannot afford your private health insurance—the government has just jacked up the price of it by 14 per cent, or something of that order, so you will downgrade your cover or you will drop your cover altogether. What happens with any insurance pool is that once those who are at the lowest risk leave it will be those who remain—by definition those with higher risk and a greater likelihood of claiming; those people who are more likely to be older Australians or those who suffer from chronic disease or conditions that require constant health care—who are hit with premium increases over the longer term. The fact that this government has not factored any of that into its costings just shows that this is not about good health outcomes; it is about trying to address yet another Labor deficit.
It is important to note that the change will have an impact on access to allied health services, with 2.8 million people with general treatment cover expected to withdraw and 5.7 million expected to downgrade over five years. The government claims that PHI is fast-growing and the 30 per cent rebate is growing at too fast a rate. When we analyse those figures we see that that is another Labor Party lie. Over, say, the last 10 years the proportion of the government spend on health has, in general terms, remained constant. The rebate represents about 3½ per cent of total public and private health care—the same as it did 10 years ago. Private health insurance is not on an unsustainable path.
It is important that those who sit on the crossbenches in this parliament understand this message. For argument's sake, in the seat of Denison 60 per cent of residents are covered by private health insurance. I have found the member for Denison to be a very reasonable person to deal with and I am sure he will recognise that, when 60 per cent of his electorate is covered by private health insurance, by definition it is a very important issue. I know that the member for Denison is thinking very carefully about his position in this debate. I ask him to think even more carefully about those families in his electorate that will face higher premiums if this bill receives safe passage through the parliament. These people in the seat of Denison will drop their private health insurance and they will face higher out-of-pocket expenses; these people in the seat of Denison will ultimately be paying higher premiums for their private health insurance.
The member for Denison is a person of strong and upstanding character and I think he will ultimately stare down this legislation. When he has a look at the independent analysis that has been released only in the last little while, as I understand it, he will see that the Labor Party's claim that this is unsustainable over the course of the next 10 years is a lie. If we can dispel that myth and put to bed this argument that somehow the 30 per cent rebate will go into unsustainable territory over the next 20 or 30 or 40 years—figures projected by Treasury but that frankly cannot be relied upon as they are presented by the government—then I think the member for Denison will re-examine the claims made by the government and he will reassess his position in this debate. I want to thank all those members who have contributed, both publicly and in the chamber, to this debate, because it is a very important debate. It is about the future of the health system in this country. When Kevin Rudd promised that he was going to fix public hospitals—his words, not mine—by mid 2009, that a revolution was going to take place and that the federal government would seek a mandate at the 2010 election to take control of public hospitals if they were not fixed by mid 2009, people actually believed him. People within his own caucus and people within the Australian public believed that Labor was serious when it came to health.
The reason Labor is currently behind in all the polling on the issue of management of health is that people know that while Labor may well start out with good intent it has no capacity to deliver the reform of public hospitals. This Prime Minister has signed up to something because she is desperate—but not for a good health outcome. She put pen to paper on an agreement with the states because she wanted to be able to say to the Australian public: 'I've at least achieved something. I've just got this one agreement, after all these months of being the Prime Minister of this country.'
When you look at the detail, the government has signed up to give the state governments, both Liberal and Labor, a bucketful of money for public hospitals. The states were of course keen to sign up, because they saw a seller in distress. They saw a Prime Minister who was desperate to get an agreement under her belt, so they took her for a ride. The states got the extra money, which is what they wanted, but they signed up essentially to business as usual. So, as happened at a state level when Labor was in control in New South Wales and as is happening in Queensland at the moment—although that is very quickly about to change—the Labor Party at the federal level is seeking to spend more health dollars, not on private health and not even on the public system but on health bureaucrats.
So the one crowning achievement of Labor in health over the course of the last four years has been that it has been able to dramatically increase the number of public servants in the health department but has not been able to improve health outcomes for mums, dads, children, pensioners and older Australians across the country. And that is the threshold question. People need to ask: 'Is it easier to get into a public hospital? Do I have a shorter time to wait with my sick child at three or four o'clock in the morning if I turn up to an emergency department? Is it easier to get in to see my GP than it was before Labor was elected? Is it easier to get hip surgery done for my grandmother or mother, who has been on a waiting list for the last 12 or 18 months? Is it easier today to have any of those services performed than it was four years ago?' And the answer to each of those questions is no.
This government has promised so much—not just in the area of health but across all the public policies it is responsible for—yet it has delivered so little. That is why I am angry, as are tens of thousands of Australians who just cannot afford private health insurance. We do not know what figures to believe for the purposes of this debate. Yesterday the minister was out saying that 100,000 people might drop out, or 85,000, or the figure of 37,000 that they used before. This government has not properly modelled the outcomes or the impacts of this policy. It tries to make us believe, and has said to the crossbenchers in this parliament—I think quite mischievously—that somehow we as a country cannot afford our expenditure on the 30 per cent rebate and that therefore the crossbenchers should vote in favour of this legislation.
This government just does not have the runs on the board to be credible with the Australian public or with the Independents in this place, whom it wants to support this legislation. To members who will be considering their position on this bill in the coming days, I say: please, look at Labor's record when it comes to health. They promised to fix the public health system, and they have failed dismally. They promised to cut waiting lists, and they have failed dismally. They promised to deliver so-called GP superclinics so that we could relieve pressure on emergency departments. They have wasted $650 million on that program, and they cannot point to one hospital where there has been a reduction in waiting times for people who turn up at the emergency department.
This is a government that promises that there will be minimal impact from the changes it is talking about. If there are going to be minimal changes, why is the government saving $2 billion plus with this policy? If people are not going to drop out of private health insurance or are not going to downgrade their cover, where do the savings come from? How is this such a savings measure if it is not going to impact on anybody? And why would we seek to drive out of health insurance those people who can leverage off their own investment into the public sector, where the taxpayer will be picking up every dollar of expenditure regardless of that individual's income?
Look at Labor's record. Look at the fact that in successive elections they promised they would not do what they are seeking to do today. Look at the fact that then Minister Roxon said to this parliament and looked the Australian people in the eye and said that the Labor Party would not introduce these changes, yet today it seeks to do so. I say to the Independents: please look at the independent analysis—particularly the report by Booz & Company, a highly respected firm in this country—which says that the claims of Treasury and the government are spurious at best and that this legislation is going to have a major detrimental impact on the way in which we conduct private health insurance in this country.
I say to the Independents: once you have assessed all that data you will be left, as I am, with no other option but to vote this bill down. This government has betrayed the Australian people on many issues. This Prime Minister betrayed Kevin Rudd. This Prime Minister betrayed the Australian public when it came to the carbon tax—she said there would be no carbon tax under her government. This Prime Minister has betrayed the Australian people when she said she would not trash private health insurance, and this bill should be voted down as a result. (Time expired)
I extend my thanks to you, Deputy Speaker, for taking the chair to permit me to participate in this debate. The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 is about fairness. It is about striking the right balance in how we spend our public dollars. So often in public life we campaign on and speak about all the good things that government can do—and it is true that the potential of government to do good things is great—but ultimately we have to face trade-offs. Governing is really more about questions of 'or' than questions of 'and'. You see that very much with the coalition at the moment, mired in their $70 billion black hole—the equivalent of stopping Medicare for four years or the pension for two years—simply because they have been unable to make the hard choices. But we are making the hard choices, and one of those is to recognise that money that currently goes into subsidising higher income Australians to take up private health insurance could be better spent in the Australian government system, including on important healthcare measures.
Those opposite want you to think that the government is against private health insurance. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is another part of the opposition's ongoing scare campaign to suggest that the government is against private provision of health, much as the opposition often suggest we are against the private provision of education. It is not true at all. The private health system is an important part of the Australian healthcare system. But with this bill we are recognising that the government need not subsidise the private health care of millionaires. It is not vital to a millionaire that they receive a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate in order for them to take up private health insurance. The first people to take up private health insurance were millionaires. Those millionaires will have that private health insurance when their 30 per cent rebate is not there. That is true even as we move down the income scale. We have strong evidence that the take-up of private health insurance did not increase markedly when the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate was put in. In fact, the policy change that substantially increased the take-up of private health insurance was the Lifetime Health Cover reform. Lifetime Health Cover had a much bigger impact on the take-up of private health insurance than did the 30 per cent rebate.
In putting in place this fair and equitable reform to the health system, Labor are doing as we always do, ensuring that Australia's healthcare system looks after the most disadvantaged in the community. It was us that introduced Medibank under the Whitlam government in 1975 and it was us that rebuilt that system into Medicare under the Hawke government in 1983-84, after the original Medibank had been trashed by the Fraser government. We believe in making sure that all Australians receive high-quality health care. Too often those opposite appear to be taking their cues from their colleagues in the United States, from US Republicans willing to laugh at low-income Americans who do not have health coverage. But that is not the Labor way. We believe that we need to have a healthcare system that recognises that good quality health care is about making sure that that people can participate in society. If you do not have good quality health care, you are unlikely to be able to hold down a job and you are unlikely to be able to participate fully in the social life of the community. So health care is, like education, a critical underpinning of a fair society.
Under this bill, the private health insurance rebate for low- and middle-income earners will remain unchanged. Higher income earners will receive a reduced rebate. As income increases, the private health insurance rebate will progressively fall. This will ensure savings to the government of $2.4 billion over the three years 2012-13 to 2014-15 and it will provide a fairer distribution of the benefits of the healthcare system.
My own electorate of Fraser has above average incomes in Australia but, even so, the number of people who will not receive the private health insurance rebate is very small. I am informed that the number of singles in my electorate who will no longer receive the private health insurance rebate is 2,220 and the number of couples is 740—a relatively small number in an electorate whose total population is now pushing up towards 200,000.
We do not expect this bill to lead to any substantial change in private health insurance coverage. We have modelling from Treasury which finds that 99.7 per cent of people will remain in private health insurance, as a result of the fact that we still have incentives such as Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare levy surcharge. So as a result of this there will be $2.4 billion additional into the budget to be spent on better healthcare initiatives and a minuscule change in private health insurance coverage.
The scare campaign the opposition is running need not be rebutted just by Treasury figures, sound as they are; Professor Elizabeth Savage, a health economist at the University of Technology, Sydney, has done considerable work in this area. Her research shows strong evidence of habit persistence, so the take-up of private health insurance is likely to endure because those who already have private health insurance will continue down the same road. Professor Savage also finds that means-testing the private health insurance rebate will not increase pressure on the public hospital system—another furphy, another scare campaign, from those opposite.
There are nearly eight million private health insurance policyholders who will not be affected by the changes at all. After these changes, as I have said, 99.7 per cent of people will remain in private health insurance. This allows us to have another $2.4 billion over the next three years. What will that get spent on? You can expect it to be spent on services such as improvements in the hospital system. From 1 January this year, we are ensuring that every state improves the proportion of emergency department patients seen within four hours. Recent academic research published in the Medical Journal of Australia has shown that that will save lives. We are expanding Medicare Locals to integrate the sectors and make sure that patients get holistic care. We are putting in place local hospital networks, making sure that decisions about hospital management are devolved to the local level. Many of these reforms will save lives. Ultimately, that is what great health care does. The opposition would rather have private health insurance rebates for millionaires than have a healthcare system that saves more lives.
We are delivering mental health reform. We are rolling out additional headspace centres and EPPIC centres. We are also looking at mental health reform across the life cycle. We are committed to putting in place the groundwork for a national disability insurance scheme, a scheme that, when it was first proposed by the Productivity Commission, the opposition said that they supported. But they are now unwilling to support that in the short term. The coalition are walking away from expanding support for people with disabilities, despite the fact that their spokesperson on disability, Senator Fifield, acknowledges that the current system is a patchwork system that contains many anomalies for people with disabilities and their carers. The coalition would again prefer to subsidise the private health insurance of millionaires rather than begin putting in place a national disability insurance scheme. Politics is about choices. Ours is national disability insurance ahead of subsidising the private health insurance of millionaires. Theirs puts subsidising the private health insurance of millionaires before better disability care.
We are building a stronger age care sector. We recognise that the age care system is in urgent need of reform and that if we do not do something to improve it the sector will face considerable strain as the baby boomers reach retirement and increasingly look for places in age care homes.
Politics is about values and what you value. What you prioritise in government shows what you value. During the global financial crisis, we chose to save 200,000 jobs and tens of thousands of small businesses. They say that they would not have taken on debt, meaning that they would have cut back on government spending in the face of the global downturn, throwing Australia into deep recession. On taxes, we are delivering pension rises and income tax cuts for working households through our Clean Energy Future package. Under a Tony Abbott government, the only people who would get tax cuts would be big miners and big polluters.
You can see the same in education. We are investing in low-income schools through the low SES national partnership. The Gonski review will ensure a fairer system for providing federal government funding to schools. We recognise that it is important to support need. If there is any rebalancing of schools assistance, they immediately launch a fear campaign. They immediately suggest that what we are doing is creating a schools 'hit list'. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Since Labor came to office there has been modest growth in the Public Service in the order of around 11,000 additional public servants, a rate of growth slower than the final years of the Howard government. We recognise that a strong Public Service is vital to delivering services such as better health care. But those opposite would make 12,000 public servants redundant, a commitment that the member for North Sydney again made on the Q&A program this week. In that program, the member for North Sydney said that there were 6,500 people working in the Department of Health and Ageing and appeared not to be sure what they did.
I can say two things about that. First of all, there are about 5,100 people working in the Department of Health and Ageing, a small increase of about 300 since the Leader of the Opposition was minister for health. As the member for North Sydney could find out if he spoke to, say, the Leader of the Opposition, the Department of Health and Ageing does enormously important work. They are working on things like the private health insurance rebates, preventative health and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I commend the work of the department of health officials that has gone into preparing this package of reforms. We on this side recognise that the Department of Health and Ageing does valuable work. Those on that side of the House would be happy to cut the department of health.
I will be interested to hear in subsequent contributions if the member for Dickson supports the views of the member for North Sydney that in fact, were the opposition to be elected government, he should preside as minister for health over a department that employed no-one whatsoever. Does the member for Dickson believe that the Department of Health and Ageing should be scrapped? If so, what portfolio would he then seek to retain?
The contrast in Australian politics could not be clearer. The opposition is always saying yes to special interests and always saying no to tax reform. The contrast can be seen nowhere more clearly than in the area of dental health. Professor Jeff Richardson, from the Centre for Health Economics at Monash University, has found that 17 per cent of the people in the lowest income group have no teeth compared to 0.3 per cent of high income people. This is from an AM interview on 8 December 2011. Yet those in the lowest income categories are receiving much less assistance to get dental care than those in the highest income categories. Those in the highest income categories have 30 per cent of their dental care bill paid for by the Australian taxpayer through the private health insurance rebate. Labor believes that is the wrong way to balance our health system. We believe that we ought to be spending less on the teeth of millionaires and more on the teeth of the most disadvantaged Australians. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)
I rise for the third time to speak on this bill and to condemn it in the strongest possible language. This is a bill that is seeking to means test, ostensibly to put out of reach of many families, the rebate relating to private health insurance.
The reason I condemn this bill absolutely is that it is a complete and utter breach of promise and breach of faith. Prior to the 2007 election, when the current government came to power, the then shadow health minister, now Attorney-General, Minister Roxon, on 26 September 2007 said:
Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all the existing Private Health Insurance rebates ...
In fact, I think there were four times—three by Minister Roxon, once by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—where the federal Labor made it abundantly clear, a promise: 'Federal Labor has made it crystal clear' were the words the minister used—'crystal clear', written in blood, so to speak: they were committed to retaining all the existing private health insurance rebates. And here we are, for the third time in four years, because this government, in an absolute and utter, complete—but not unprecedented—breach of faith and complete break of a promise, has now decided that 'crystal clear' actually means 'muddy and opaque'.
It is no wonder that they are breaking another promise to the Australian people. It was a mere six days before an election when the Prime Minister, to win the election, said that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. Treasurer Swan, at a subsequent interview, made it perfectly clear that this 'overblown rhetoric of the Liberal Party' that somehow Labor would introduce a carbon tax was completely false, and a few weeks later, in a move of utter duplicity, that was rolled back.
So it is not unprecedented that such a promise would be broken. But how can the federal health minister walk into this chamber, the House of Representatives of the nation, where 150 men and women gather from all four corners of our land, after she has made a comment that 'Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all the existing Private Health Insurance rebates'. What she meant to say was, 'We are going to make it crystal clear we have absolutely and utterly no commitment to our promises; we will not retain any of the key elements and articles of faith that we say. When they say 'all the existing' they mean 'partial', 'some' or perhaps even 'none', and 'We have absolutely no concern for the private health insurance of ordinary Australians'.
These cuts underline the completely and utterly botched attempts at health reform. We all remember Prime Minister Rudd putting out that wonderful colour brochure before the 2007 election, with a picture of the Prime Minister saying, 'The buck stops with me on health! I'll fix health. If this is not fixed within 18 months I'll go for a referendum on taking over full control of health'. Another broken promise from the government. Where is the referendum? Where is the 'I'll fix health'? Has the buck left the building? Who is taking responsibility?
This was followed up, of course, with the great commitment on sorting out health, taking 30 per cent of the GST from the states, putting in three new bureaucracies—where has all that gone? This government's attempt at health reform has been botched, has been bungled and has been duplicitous from the very beginning. This government never had any intention of fulfilling any of their promises in health. I have listened to the debate this morning and all I have heard are Labor members of parliament rattle off a whole range of ancillary decisions that have been made in health, somehow to pretend that they are committed to having a sound vision and a long-term plan for where they are going when, in reality, this is simply the politics of division, of some farcical class warfare that we have to take away the private health insurance rebate and nationalise and socialise health in terms of one size fits all.
But be under no doubt: these changes, apart from being duplicitous in the extreme, will force people to drop private health insurance cover or to choose cheaper cover. They will put enormous upwards pressure on insurance premiums and will force more people into overstretched public hospital systems, systems like those in the Gold Coast Hospital, from where I come, where 46 per cent of people who go into Emergency hit access block, right now—that is a statement of fact. That means they will spend eight hours waiting, or on a trolley, before going into a hospital bed. And it is this system, broken by Labor state administrations, that this government wants to force more Australians onto. And for what sound reason, may I ask? Because somehow, those people who have taken out private health insurance are, what, wealthy beyond measure? Are they not deserving of any assistance in any way, shape or form? You want to force decent, hardworking Australians who take out private health insurance, in many ways because they have little faith in the current administrations Labor have presided over and pushed them onto a hospital system at a state level that is struggling. It is a blatant cost-shifting measure from the Commonwealth to the states' public systems.
This measure will not just be felt by those on supposedly higher incomes. It will not just be felt by those who incur an up-to 43 per cent increase in their premiums. It will be felt by everyone who will incur those cost increases. It will be felt by all Australians with private health insurance, who face higher premiums into the future.
We believe everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. We believe everyone should have access to choice in healthcare. We are strongly support providing all Australians with that choice through affordable private health insurance if they wish to take it out. As a result of the introduction of the private health insurance rebate under the previous coalition government, the Medicare levy surcharge and lifetime health cover, private health insurance coverage increased from 34 per cent in 1996 to 44 per cent in 2007—a 33 per cent increase, a staggering increase in Australians who elected for choice. Every dollar of funding provided for the private health insurance rebate saves $2 of costs that are then paid by private health insurers—so says Econtech Pty Ltd, Harper Associates and Hagan. Private hospitals right now treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia—40 per cent. In 2009-10 private hospitals treated 3.5 million patients. Private hospitals performed the majority of elective surgery in Australia—64 per cent—and 10.2 million people, or about 45 per cent, have private health insurance. It is interesting when you look at how private health insurance works. In preparation for this debate, I had discussions with the CEO of the Sisters of Charity hospital in Brisbane and the CEO of the UnitingCare hospital system. It is interesting that, for every seven clinicians—doctors or nurses—they have, there are three nonclinicians, administrative staff. And then we have Queensland Health, for 18 years presided over by the Labor government. Queensland Health has 64,000 employees. Why? Because in the enterprise bargain with the union the first line says, 'You cannot reduce below 64,000.' The union is not interested in reform or productivity; it is interested in union jobs. For every three clinicians, there are seven nonclinicians.
So private hospitals and private health are doing the bulk of elective surgery and treating 40 per cent of all patients. In the private hospitals that I have spoken to in Queensland, there are seven clinicians for three nonclinicians. In the public system, there are three clinicians for every seven nonclinicians. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out what the problem is in our public health system presided over by Labor administrations. The waste is beyond measure. And this government wants to force more and more people into that untenable, poorly managed system.
The impact will be significant. Two and half million people will be directly impacted by these changes and will face immediate increases in premiums of 14 per cent, 29 per cent and 43 per cent in the respective income tiers. So 2.4 million people will be impacted. It is not as if the cost-of-living increases are not already striking Australian families. Electricity prices, since this government came to power, have increased by 51 per cent, gas prices by over 20 per cent, food prices by over 20 per cent and rents by the same types of quantums. Wherever this government has gone, so too has the cost of living. Now this government wants to do it to 2.4 million Australians and put enormous pressure on the existing public hospital system because, in its class struggle view, these Australians are wealthy and do not deserve assistance from the Commonwealth.
The government owned insurer, Medibank Private—the government's own insurer—has predicted that 37,000 of its members alone will drop their cover and 92½ thousand will downgrade. This is considerably more than the 27,000 the minister has claimed, so I am not too sure where the minister is getting her advice from—perhaps from her press secretary; we know how well Labor press secretaries are doing of late! Deloitte analysis of the changes showed that in the first year 175,000 people are expected to withdraw from private hospital cover and a further 583,000 to downgrade. Over five years, it is expected that 1.6 million will drop cover and 4.3 million will downgrade. The government has not disclosed the numbers of people expected to downgrade but, as premiums increase significantly for those in the income tiers, it is reasonable to expect they will seek cheaper products, which will have a whole range of second-round effects on public hospitals.
Deloitte continues to predict that private health insurance premiums will rise 10 per cent above what they would otherwise be, in the initial phases. There will be $3.8 billion in additional recurrent costs for the public sector. Where will the public sector get that from? Look at Queensland, my home state. The Labor government have been there for over 18 years. The credit rating of the government has been downgraded. Why? Because their public debt on their balance sheet is now $40 billion, with a further $43 billion on the balance sheets of the government owned entities. In the last 18 years the Labor government have gone from a zero debt position to $87 billion in net debt at a state government level, a level of debt that is almost unable to be paid back when you look at the structure of the government's fiscal position. Indeed, Defence, including Veterans' Affairs, spends as much money in terms of budget allocation as the government in Queensland do—to give you an idea of where they are going.
Then again, we should not wonder at that, considering the fiscal position four years ago of the Commonwealth. Public net debt was zero, with $60 billion in the Future Fund and $40 billion either in the bank or in the surplus. Now, in a staggering turnaround, we are at $133-odd billion in net debt—a staggering turnaround in public finances.
These changes will have a huge impact across the nation. But, more importantly, the changes are symptomatic of the Labor government's view of where things are going. This is just one more in the tragic litany of broken promises. I remind all Australians of what this government said prior to the 2007 election, what it said publicly, what it put in writing in its media releases and what the Prime Minister to be and the health minister to be said. They could not have been clearer, just as the Prime Minister could not have been clearer when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and three weeks later she broke that promise. Prior to that election, the Prime Minister to be and the Minister for Health and Ageing to be said, 'Federal Labor have made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all the existing private health insurance rebates.' They had no intention of keeping that promise. They had no intention of keeping it at all—
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
and every government member on that side of the House who sits there like the lobotomised member for McEwen and argues against it simply agrees with the government on that on that point—
Order! The—
I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. The government knew it then; it knows it now. At some stage the duplicity has to stop. At some stage this government has to actually start keeping its word. Wouldn't that be a novel approach for the government to have. The coalition will vote against this en masse and will strenuously reject it here and in the Senate.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak against this bill before the chamber, the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011, which is another broken promise from this Labor government. Worse than that, it reflects more about the internal machinations of the prime ministership of our country than it does about a genuine attempt to bring about good reform and productivity-increasing changes to our economy. This is a deal with the Left of the Labor Party and the Greens party to ensure that this Prime Minister is propped up for just a little bit longer to hold the Minister for Foreign Affairs at bay. It was promised before the 2007 election that this would not be changed, but we know and we knew then that the powers within the union movement, the millions of dollars of donations they receive from these unions, would eventually hold sway and this bill would be introduced and the powers of the ABCC would be gutted absolutely.
The ABCC has actually been effective. It has done what the royal commission sought it to do when it handed down its report in February 2003, some nine years ago now. It did take some time for the Howard government to get the necessary reforms in place, and in 2005 they were able to get through these reforms, and they were good reforms. They sought to bring the rule of law back into an industry which had been marked by complete disregard for the normal laws of our country for too long. That had an effect not just on the operators in that industry but also on the prices of properties that Australians had to pay for, which of course impacts on the economy and reduces the amount of money that people are able to spend on other productive things. It impacts on inflation and impacts on the employment prospects of many Australians.
The royal commission found that this industry was plagued by behaviour that was just unacceptable in a modern society. It was plagued by violence, by corruption, by the use of threats to stand over contractors, to stand over companies. It has to be said that the royal commission found some of the same behaviour by some of those companies involved also. This industry had operated like a jungle with the rule of the jungle for too long and it took extraordinary laws, absolutely extraordinary powers, for this industry to be brought back under control.
What we have now seen is that this Labor government is desperate to hang on, obsessed with itself, obsessed with one job, the job of the person who sits next to the dispatch box. The current occupant, the member for Blaxland, hopes to be there one day too, it must be noted. This is a deal with the Greens, a deal with the Left of the Labor Party, to ensure the stability of this Prime Minister for just a little bit longer. This is something the Labor Party very clearly said they would not do. They said that they would not change the ABCC. They said they would not gut this important cop on the beat. They said they would not bow to the millions of dollars they get from these trade unions to influence this policy, to change this policy which has changed behaviour in this industry, which has ensured that this industry is once again competitive, is once again able to produce high quality at lower cost, reducing the pressure on consumers and reducing the pressure on the taxpayers, it must be said. Someone not often spoken about that in this place anymore is the taxpayer and their money being used properly.
We know that the government is not all that interested in spending money properly or wisely. That is why we have seen a deterioration in the Australian Commonwealth finances from a $20 billion surplus in 2006-07 to now nearly $140 billion in net debt, $300 billion in gross debt, and blowing out day after day. This is part of the problem we see, this reregulation in this area. We have seen this day after day over the Christmas period and most of last year—and some people have been making this point for a while—that the changes made in the workplace relations area, including in this particular area, are doing enormous damage to our future prospects as a nation, to our future productive capacity as a nation.
The member for McEwen may shake his head, but I do not think Marius Kloppers lies. I do not think there is any need for Marius Kloppers to lie. I do not think the head of Toyota lies. We hear much about the car industry from those on the other side. We hear much about how great the car industry is, how it must be saved, that we have to keep co-investing to ensure we save it. But we knew nothing about the microeconomic reforms which actually would ensure its survival, ensuring that people can be employed at reasonable rates of pay and reasonable conditions—but not in the position where the union movement in this country is given such power that it is able to bring massive corporations to their knees. That is what we are seeing with BHP with the coking-coal dispute in Queensland. We are seeing a massive global corporation employing hundreds of thousands of people, one of Australia's great prosperity drivers—
You can't even keep a straight face when you say that, Jamie.
Being sledged by the member for McEwen is an interesting experience.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
This sort of gutter behaviour of the member for McEwen and the language he uses in this place reflect exactly where they are. We saw that on Australia Day and we see it with the member for McEwen and his behaviour today. I think the voters will see it very soon, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The reregulation, the changes that the Labor Party have made to Australian workplace law, driven by people like the member for McEwen, are impacting enormously on the disputation in our nation. They are impacting enormously on the employment capacity of thousands of small businesses, and now we are seeing it with our biggest employers. The people these people pretend they stand for are being affected by the laws that they put in place. We will see it no worse than what we see with this bill, which is again a broken promise—from a government you cannot trust and a Prime Minister who said 'There would be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' This is exactly the same broken promise—the same as the broken promise that the member for Denison has gone through in the last few weeks with the pokies change, which we always said they would never go ahead with.
Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—
We always said they would not go ahead with it, Laurie. You know that, mate. We always said that. All was promised to ensure that one job in this country. The chair the minister currently at the table is sitting in is all the Labor Party is interested in. This bill is a backdown on a promise because of a demand of the Greens and a demand of the Left of the Labor Party. Reflecting back on the building industry royal commission, I will remind the House of some of the key findings it handed down in 2003. It found:
… structural changes are necessary to ensure that bargaining at the enterprise level occurs. At present, it does not. Pattern bargaining in this industry should be prohibited by statute.
It was prohibited by those changes. It will be undone by these changes. It also said:
… mechanisms should be in place to ensure that any participant in the industry causing loss to other participants as a result of unlawful industrial action is held responsible for that loss.
They were by the Building Commission reforms. They will not be by these changes. It further said:
… mechanisms must be in place to ensure that where disputes occur within the industry, such disputes are resolved in accordance with legislated or agreed dispute resolution mechanisms rather than by the application of industrial and commercial pressure. The 'rule of law' must replace industrial might.
That is exactly what the building industry reforms in 2005 were about. It is what they have achieved since 2005 in this industry. They brought back into the normal practice of rule of law the normal behaviour expected by ordinary Australians and by other industries across this nation. These changes will reintroduce the behaviour where contractors were stood over and contracts demanded union participation on sites. These are the sorts of provisions we will see again when this is all removed. The cost will be borne by Australians. It will not be borne by the Australian Labor Party; it will be borne by Australians.
The royal commission recommendations went on to say:
… there needs to be an independent body, free of the pressures on the participants in the industry, which will ensure that participants comply with industrial, civil and criminal laws applicable to all Australians, and thus operating on building and construction sites, as well as industry specific laws applicable to this industry only.
These are very specific provisions. What the royal commission found was so shocking that these eminent people decided that there had to be specific provisions to deal with this industry because it was in such a bad state. It was costing Australians so much more because of the behaviour of participants in the industry.
The findings highlight exactly what it was trying to achieve and exactly what the Howard government's bills did in 2005, which was to bring back the rule of law and bring in an independent body with a specific group of people looking at the law to ensure that this industry once again was brought back to productiveness and was governed by acceptable community standards of behaviour in industrial relations in this country. It was a cultural issue as well as a legal issue and it needed and continues to need specific attention.
Removing the watchdog, the cop on the beat, in this industry, as we see in this bill, will do untold damage to the productive capacity of this industry at a time when we should be looking at how we can become more productive. We should be looking at how we can free up our economy. This measure will again encourage the worst of the behaviours, as we are now seeing on worksites around this country, whether it be BHP, Toyota or the thousands of small businesses that every day face increased activity by the union movement. That puts untold pressure on thousands of businesses and jobs and on our economy when we need to be finding ways to be more competitive.
The reforms at the broader workplace relations level were always going to be a disaster from the very moment they were put in place. We know that because we see it every day now on the front page of the Financial Reviewand the Australian and as we move around our country. There is immense fear in the eyes of Australians over their job security, because of the changes this government is putting in place. It is a real and genuine concern for the future of our country. These laws are continually being made more union-friendly and friendly to specific interests rather than being for the broader economic goals of all Australians. This is exactly what we are seeing with this bill. It is more about the Labor Party and its internal machinations and about rewarding its mates. It is about rewarding those who have donated millions of dollars over time to ensure that they get to write policies for the Australian Labor Party.
What it is not about is finding ways to ensure that this industry can continue to be competitive in a modern economy and in a flat world. Instead what these people are trying to do is create a circumstance—
Flat world?
The members opposite seem to think that you can just continue to apply standards to industry that are far above what is affordable in the future, and the building industry is a perfect example of that. If you let unions run rampant, if you let unlawful behaviour run rampant, as it has historically—and the royal commission found this—you will find that there will be fewer Australians employed, it will cost more and our productivity will continue to go down, as we are seeing right now.
This is an important bill. If it passes, this industry will go back to the bad old days of the past. It will go back to where people could not go to work to achieve good outcomes and a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. They will go to work and be bullied and intimidated and exposed to the worst excesses of an industry that has been guided by lawlessness in the past. This bill should not be allowed to pass for that reason.
The agency has done an excellent job, firstly under the leadership of John Lloyd, who was an outstanding Australian and an outstanding thinker in these areas. He did an outstanding job in bringing this industry back from the very worst excesses we had seen for so long.
You have to ask yourself what the motive is for this bill. Is it about making a better industry or is it about rewarding mates? Is it about rewarding those who have donated so much for so long, rewarding those who sit on the back benches of the Australian Labor Party and rewarding those who help prop the government up? The answer to all those questions is that it is about the Labor Party and the prime ministership; it is not about the good productive capacity of our economy for the future. It should be opposed in the strongest terms.
Isn't it a pleasure to follow the Barbara Cartland of Australian politics, the member for Mayo, with his romantic fiction about how big and bad the world is going to be when we have a fairer workplace, harking back to the good old days as the architect of Work Choices—the man whose idea of fair work in this country is you work hard and he will take the money? It is an absolute joke to have him stand there and conjure up all these thoughts of dark clouds and the world falling down because what we want to do is let industry and workers have a workplace that is fairer to give everyone a go.
I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 because it is built on the foundations of what is great about the Labor Party: fairness in the workplace. On this side of the House, we know how important the building and construction industry is and how in turn this industry has directly helped to create jobs and boosted our economy during the global financial crisis, and which continues to strengthen and grow the economy today.
Not only has our nation-building plan, with projects such as the Building the Education Revolution, kept our economy strong, it has also kept Australian workers in jobs, with their families getting food on their table and paying their mortgage payments and their bills and still having a lifestyle during the global downturn. The delivery of our nation-building projects is reliant on the construction industry and that is why it is pleasing to speak on a bill which abolishes the Howard government's Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. Despite what was said earlier, this bill will deliver on Labor's commitment to replace the ABCC with a new body which provides a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry. The ABCC is not a suitable regulator and needs to be replaced with a new body which is part of the mainstream Fair Work system and it will operate in harmony with community expectations of a fair and just workplace relations system. As the Prime Minister has previously stated, this bill will ensure that a new regulator is established to provide information, advice and assistance to all building industry participants regarding their rights and obligations under the law, as well as seek to improve the standards of occupational health and safety in the building and construction industry.
The government appointed Justice Murray Wilcox QC, a person of very high standing, to consult and report on the matters related to the creation of a new building industry inspectorate to regulate the construction industry and, after Justice Wilcox's extensive consultation with all stakeholders, we are now moving to deliver on abolishing the ABCC and establishing a new fair regulator. The bill honours the government's commitment and gives effect to the principal recommendations in the Wilcox report. The bill aims to provide fairness in the industry by ensuring that information, advice and assistance is available to all participants in connection with their rights and obligations under all the relevant laws. It also provides effective ways for investigation and enforcement of the relevant laws while balancing the rights of the building industry participants through the provision of appropriate safeguards in relation to the use of enforcement powers. The bill seeks to improve the level of occupational health and safety in the building industry, something that we on this side of the House are very mindful of. We want to make sure that when people go to work they go to a safe workplace and they can come home to their families. That is why this bill is important, to ensure that we do see the OH&S standards lifted. The bill also retains the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner and its related accreditation scheme, which have resulted in demonstrated improvements in the OH&S practices and records of accredited companies and related projects. The creation of the building industry inspectorate will work in compliance with the general workplace relations laws, as prescribed in the Fair Work Act 2009, by all—that is important—building industry participants.
The ABCC showed the contempt that the Liberal Party has for workers. Let us remember that the ABCC in conjunction with Work Choices illustrates the lack of respect those opposite have for the hardworking men and women of Australia. They have never supported them and we know they never will. It is not in their DNA. Think about the data that was collected during the dark days of the Howard Liberal government. The results of the data that they wanted collected were so bad that the Liberal government went to the Office of Employment Advocate and said, 'Stop collecting the data. It's showing how bad it is. We've got to stop it immediately.' That was their way of hiding the truth: 'Let's just shut it down and hide it and no-one knows about it.'
Once our new regulator is established it will have the powers and responsibilities to ensure that employers, their organisations, employees and trade unions all abide by their obligations under the law. As I have said, this bill will abolish the office of the ABCC and create a new agency, the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, to regulate the building and construction industry. The bill implements the key recommendations of the Transition to Fair Work Australia for the Building and Construction Industry report by the Hon. Murray Wilcox QC. The bill removes existing higher penalties for building industry participants for breaches of industrial law and introduces safeguards in relation to the power to compulsorily obtain information and documents. It also creates an office, the Independent Assessor, who will determine, on application by the stakeholders, that compulsory information-gathering powers will not apply to a project.
In the development of this legislation, the government carried out very extensive consultation with industry, with unions and with state and territory governments in 2008-09 and Justice Wilcox also consulted widely with all stakeholders in the construction industry as part of his 2009 report. And while we do this, the opposition are still committed to pursuing their extreme workplace relations laws rather than ensuring lawful conduct by all parties in the building industry. It is our government, the Gillard government, that is continuing to support a fair and effective industrial relations system. We abolished Work Choices and created a balanced industrial relations system that has returned fairness to our workplaces while, at the same time, boosting our national productivity. This means that 2.8 million more Australians have protection against being unfairly sacked.
As I travel through the electorate of McEwen, I find that Australians are getting sick to death of the Leader of the Opposition saying no to everything. But it seems the one thing he can say yes to is Work Choices. Wherever you look it is deep in the hearts of those opposite. They cannot get rid of it. They want an unfair industrial relations policy. They can say it is 'dead, buried and cremated' but it rises again like Frankenstein. We know from their talk over the last six months that they have been thinking of reintroducing a Work Choices system. They do not want Australians to have a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That is the crystal clear difference between us sitting on this side of the House and those who sit opposite. We want to make sure that everyone gets paid fairly. We want to make sure that for a hard day's work everyone is delivered a fair day's pay in a safe workplace.
Under the Howard Liberal government thousands of Australian workers were worse off. There were the unfair dismissal laws. The most vulnerable workers were forced onto those horrible things called AWAs. AWAs stripped away conditions like penalty rates, rest breaks and overtime—conditions that are so important for people who do not earn as much as we do. Those opposite decided to strip those conditions away from them to make sure that they could not afford that little bit extra for doing an extra bit of hard work. This is not something that the Leader of the Opposition shies away from. His only current policy seems to be Work Choices mark II. Let us go to a speech that he gave in 2001 to that interesting group called the Nicholls Society. He said:
One of the most important Howard Government policies has been the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements.
He thinks it is a good thing that 64 per cent of the AWAs cut annual leave loading; 63 per cent cut penalty rates; 52 per cent cut shiftwork loading; 46 per cent cut public holiday pay; 40 per cent cut rest breaks; 36 per cent cut declared public holidays; and 22 per cent provided workers with no pay rises at all—none, and some for up to five years. They ripped off workers. It is an absolute disgrace that they sit there and say: 'We care for workers now. We've turned over a new leaf.' They have not changed their spots at all. Give them two minutes on this side of the House and I can guarantee that they will be back to where they were under Work Choices, ensuring that we have a two-level society. It will be them taking the money and the rest of the country working hard and delivering the benefits into their pockets and those of the shareholders.
All data shows that our industrial system is working well. We have low unemployment. We have contained wages growth. We have low levels of industrial disputations and record levels of successful workplace agreements. Labor ended the AWA individual contracts that stripped away all the pay and conditions of hardworking Australians. We established Fair Work Australia, an independent umpire—that is the key word, 'independent'—to help employees and employers resolve disputes in the workplace. The Fair Work Act is delivering the outcomes promised to Australians in Labor's Forward with Fairness election policy. It is delivering a record number of agreements, low unemployment and contained wages growth—all three are important to keep our economy growing. It has restored the balance to the industrial relations landscape in this country—a balance that was lost under the dreadful Work Choices.
For all the heat the opposition attempt to create in industrial relations, the reality is that there is precious little to support their views. We have broadened the definition of pay equity so that it does not simply provide equal pay for equal work but provides equal pay for equal work value so that discrimination does not have to be proven as grounds for bringing a case forward. Labor has provided a fair minimum safety net for Australian employees consisting of 10 national employment standards in a modern award system. Labor has helped young families with Australia's first Paid Parental Leave Scheme—a parental leave scheme that the Leader of the Opposition said would happen over his dead body—another promise he broke.
Labor has extended the rights for unpaid parental leave in the National Employment Standards. We have introduced a no disadvantage test to make sure that workplace agreements leave workers better off. We have restored protections from unfair dismissal to 2.8 million Australians. Seven million employees are now eligible for unfair dismissal claims—almost double what was available under Work Choices. We are out there protecting Australian workers and their families. We have streamlined and strengthened the general protections for workers with the freedom for them to choose to be represented in the workplace as a key part of our new system. We are not going to give ground when it comes to protecting the rights of working people.
The Labor way is to support working Australians and the Liberal's way is to abandon them for big business. This legislation is an important step, an important policy, that we are delivering and we need to see it go through to ensure that we have safe and fair building and construction industry workplaces. I wish this bill a very speedy passage.
The last time a bill like the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 was introduced into the House a very good friend of mine was working on scaffolding and there was a problem. He lost his leg and he very nearly lost his life. Right before that legislation was introduced by the Liberal Party, I knew someone who had suffered in the industry and very nearly died. I was very honoured to see him in hospital. He was dying at that stage and only a few people were allowed in to see him—but he recovered.
Before the bill before us was introduced I attended a stop-work rally. A couple of very good candidates for our new party are very strong union representatives. They insisted that we go along to the stop-work meeting at the tunnels in Brisbane where a series of accidents had occurred. They demanded that I get up and give a speech. There were about 1,000 people at the meeting. I did not know that there was a person teetering between life and death—a man called Sam Beveridge. I did not know who he was. I just knew that there had been a series of accidents and the boys were entitled to go out on the grass about them because the situation was just getting worse, not better. There needed to be a public statement made. I lent whatever value I had in being there. Our state leader was also there. What I did not know was that this person, Sam Beveridge, was a very good friend of mine. I think he ran for mayor of Charters Towers, my home town. Both Frankie and Sam had been brought up with my own daughters and they are some of my best friends in the town and area. Frank is very fine young man. I did not know it was his brother, so it came home to me with a terrible vengeance that whilst I was out there just looking after John Doe, it was not John Doe—it was a person. In fact, both the boys had been very friendly with our family throughout their lives and Frank—Sam's brother—has been one of my closest people in the city of Charters Towers. Sam subsequently died.
There are a lot of people on the Left but almost all the people on my right on the opposition benches do not have a remote understanding of how the real world works. When I was a union rep, briefly, in Mount Isa we had two health issues and one safety issue. I took them up with the foreman on the site and he did nothing about them, so I went racing off to my union—I will not mention which union it was—although the boys told me not to. But, being real smart at that age—I was in my late teens or early 20s—I knew everything about everything. I watched in horror as the union organiser came down, went up in the control room where it is all air conditioned—we were covered in lead dust from daylight to dark where I was working with my shovel over my shoulder—and pointed out to my bosses that I was the bloke making the complaints.
I am ashamed to admit this, but I think I should: I pulled out on that because I was on huge money and was not going to give up my job. So we just had to go on in an unhealthy situation. I do not want to be very specific about it but there was wire netting. We had pretty bad dengue problems up in these areas and there were massive numbers of mosquitoes. Someone had got drunk and fallen through the wire netting and it needed to be fixed. On the work site, a shaker kept getting stuck so one of us had to jump on a flue and hit it with a sledge hammer and then let it move—you hoped—but often it did not. Then a bloke on the other side would hit it with a sledge hammer until, eventually we would break it free and it would start moving. But when it started moving it came back at you at about 60 miles an hour. Of course, if you stayed long enough on the flue leading up to it your leather boots would start to burn because it was extremely hot as well. It was an extremely dangerous situation and the damn shaker needed to be fixed. But, I am ashamed to say, I was intimidated.
The reason this bill was introduced was to intimidate union officials so that they would go to water, like I did. We do not want our union officials being intimidated. They tell me—I do not remember it clearly—that there were terrible problems and excessive behaviour by some of the unions involved. Some of these people came across from the Painters and Dockers Union where there were serious problems, and I would be the first to admit that. I was well aware of that. If those problems were there, they are ancient history and they are most certainly not there today. But even if they were, you do not start taking away basic freedoms. In Australia today, particularly in the states of Queensland and New South Wales, property rights are just a joke. I mean, you do not own your house; the Crown owns your house.
Long, long ago, in 1215 at a place called Runnymede, we stood the Crown up and said, 'Listen, Mr Crown, you are not grabbing us off the street any longer and dragging us to one of your dungeons. You will only take us through due process of law that you, Mr State, will not control.' What does this bill do? Exactly that. We can grab you, take you away and put you in a room. You have no rights, you have got to do that, and when you are in that room you will tell us what we want to know and if you do not we will leave you in that room indefinitely—it is called a jail.
In this place it amazes me that nobody seems to read any books. They do not seem to have any knowledge of history. They do not understand that the most basic concepts upon which our society is built. I said to an Attorney-General in the Labor government—no, I will not say that because I am not too sure whether he was Justice Minister or Attorney-General or assistant Attorney-General or what the hell his position was—'Don't you understand this is habeas corpus? It's what we fought and died for, the Magna Carta, and our forebears have been fighting and dying for it ever since. Don't you understand that?' He just did not understand it. I said, 'Mate, your superiors understand it and you are in desperate trouble.' This man was a numbskull. The judge in court said, 'I simply can't believe this case, that the minister could have allowed such a towering injustice to occur; that the man was taken without any evidence whatsoever and thrown in jail for five years of his life without any evidence.' In fact, there was evidence and it proved that he was not in the place, absolutely, where the crime was committed. But the minister would not review the case, so the judge pounded him. The Prime Minister, who makes these decisions, subsequently sacked him. How is it that a person can become a minister in a government and not know about these most elemental freedoms?
If the opposition votes against this bill today then it will demonstrate to every single person—all 22 million, or whatever it is, of us in Australia—that it does not understand the most basic precepts of freedom. Habeas corpus in its translation from Latin says 'have the person'. You cannot have the person without due, proper and fair process of law, and that dates back all the way to 1215. I strongly recommend that everyone in the House go and see Russell Crowe's movie Robin Hood. It was more about the property rights side of things, but it had it dead right. Effectively, the message was: 'Mr King, Mr Crown, you do not have a discretionary power to tell me what to do. You do not have a discretionary power. You are subject to the law, Mr Crown. That is my land, not your land.' There was a wonderful scene in it in with the great Australian actor and father of the Rabbitohs, Russell Crowe—he could get away with it, of course. King John says to him, 'What? Do you think I have the wherewithal to give every Englishman a castle?' and Russell Crowe—as I say, he could get away with it—replies, 'Every Englishman's home is his castle.'
Well, it ain't so in Queensland or in New South Wales. We are not allowed to remove a flying fox from our backyard in Queensland. We are not allowed to kill a deadly snake in our living room in Queensland. We are not allowed to have a pocketknife in Queensland; they have banned all pocketknives in Queensland. No, we have discretionary government. It was called tyranny once upon a time, but I will use the term 'discretionary government'. This is at the very heart of that. The Crown's minions can be given the power just to pluck you off the street, put you in a room and, if you do not tell them what they want to know, leave you in that room forever, just about.
I do not want to be promoting either myself or my colleague—it is very rare for him to be my colleague—from the party which sits at the opposite political pole to me. But there has to be something badly wrong when the Greens climb into bed with Katter's Australian Party. There has to be something very badly wrong.
It is all right for the government to promote themselves and say how wonderful they are by moving this and by saying how terrible the other mob were. But I still have worries about this. Obviously, I have discussed it with union officials, but the coercive powers are still there for three years. If you wanted to phase them out, why would you not phase them out in 15 months? I view the three years with very great suspicion, because 15 months is plenty to phase them out. If they are to continue for three years, the polls suggest there may well be a change of government in that time. So it could well be that the government of Australia—the cabinet ministers—sat down with the captains of industry and said: 'Don't worry about it, blokes. We are not going well, mate. We won't be there, so you can change it all back again.' It is just a stop-the-sunshine clause. But if it were to be removed entirely, it would make it infinitely more difficult, particularly with the numbers in the Senate, for the people on my right to take away our basic freedoms, as they did with their IR legislation.
I spoke about habeas corpus—that you cannot 'have the body'. Another term is 'Star Chamber'. It is about discretionary power. The king decided that he would just give discretionary power to a judge and judicial set-up—it became known as the Star Chamber—but there were no rules; they could just decide whatever they liked. They were just attack dogs, in many cases, for the Crown. So the term 'Star Chamber' is a word that we curse and vilify, as we do the Inquisition and various other forms of tyranny which have jumped up to attack us over the course of history. The concept of a Star Chamber was that it could just make a decision whether you liked it or not. In this case, they have the discretion to apply coercion if the person is not going to rat on his mates or his fellow workmen. It gives me no great pride to stand in here and say that I dingoed it back when I was working at Mount Isa Mines. I was not actually a union rep at that time, so I can defend myself to some degree, I suppose, but I still feel pretty ashamed to have to admit that.
But what I am trying to get across is that it is scary out there. If you complain about the way things are happening at work, you get sacked. I do not think the people on my right here have ever worked in a job in the real world, because if they had they would know that if you complain about safety and security—
Opposition members interjecting—
Then how do you explain to me that, if a person in the building industry decides that there is a serious problem of workplace health and safety and he complains about it—
Opposition members interjecting—
No, your legislation said that he has to rat out his mates.
Order! All remarks will be made through the chair.
We are going to move amendments to try to make this legislation go as it should go if it is going to be fair dinkum. We will be moving to remove the coercive powers now and restore the right to silence—a right which every other country in the world respects. We are going to respect habeas corpus and the right to silence, which are two basic building blocks of society throughout the rest of the world, with— (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. This bill will rename the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 as the Fair Work Building (Industry Act) 2011. It will also abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and replace it with the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, which will be headed by a director appointed by the minster. Under the bill, the minister will have the power to specify the manner in which the director of the inspectorate is to exercise powers and functions, although that will not be in relation to particular cases. This is similar to the power of the minister found in the BCII Act. However, the minister will also have the ability to give direction to the director on policies, programs and priorities. This power is not found in the current act. The bill also introduces new compulsory examination notices which would allow for the director of the inspectorate to apply to a nominated Administration Appeals Tribunal presidential member for a notice that would require a person to attend an examination in relation to an ongoing investigation. The bill provides for the conduct of such examinations, as well as penalties for noncompliance with an examination notice. However, an interested person can make an application to have the compulsory examination notice powers of the Administration Appeals Tribunal presidential member not apply to particular building projects. In effect, this means that a person can simply switch off the inspectorate's ability to examine possible contraventions of workplace relations law.
The bill before the parliament today will strip away many of the protections that workers in the building and construction industry currently have that ensure they work in a safe and lawful environment. When we look to what has happened in the past, the most probable outcome of the removal of the Building and Construction Commission will be a resurgence of uncertainty and a decline in productivity in the building and construction industry.
I have previously spoken in this place about the history of the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Whilst I do not intend to go through that detail today, it is useful to briefly go through the background. The building and construction industry in Australia has a long history of industrial disputation. Over many years, there have been numerous inquiries and investigations into how that sector operates.
Some of the reviews appeared to focus on terms and conditions of employment and relevant awards provisions, such as the review conducted by a full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the late 1980s. The full bench made a number of findings in relation to inconsistent regulation between federal and state jurisdictions, the abolition of paid rates awards, the establishment of a single award and the rationalisation of award respondents. Whilst these were clearly very useful findings, this review dealt with only a relatively small number of issues that impacted on the building and construction industry.
In effect, what was uncovered later revealed it to be the tip of the iceberg. Whilst this was a positive step in regulating the industry, there was no doubt that there was a significant way to go to reform the sector, particularly to deal with entrenched work practices. There were further reviews during the 1990s and the early 2000s at various levels dealing with a wide range of issues, including workers being forced to join a union, right of entry, strike pay and contractors.
In 2001 the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry was established, with broad-ranging terms of reference, including inquiring into and reporting on unlawful or otherwise inappropriate industrial or workplace practice, occupational health and safety, fraud, corruption, collusion or anti-competitive behaviour, coercion, violence and interference in decisions on whether or not to engage persons or the terms under which they would be employed or engaged.
Clearly, there were some significant and serious matters impacting on the performance of the sector in the years leading up to the royal commission. Submissions were put to the Cole royal commission in relation to the perceived need by major contractors to concede to union demands in order to avoid future economic losses and subsequent pressure on subcontractors to sign pattern bargaining agreements or not be engaged on major building sites.
The findings of the royal commission included that there was an urgent need for structural and cultural reform in the building and construction industry and that the industry 'departs from the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the rest of the Australian economy'. Commissioner Cole found that past attempts to reform the conduct and culture of the industry had failed and that this failure was due 'to two principal factors'. Firstly:
… there has been an insufficient determination on the part of government to establish structures which will enable the industry to operate fairly and productively and in a manner respecting the rights of individuals. There has been an inadequate structure to enforce the law and usual standards applicable in other industries.
Commissioner Cole also recommended the establishment of an independent commission, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, to monitor conduct in the industry.
The Building and Construction Commission which was subsequently established, has instituted proceedings for contravention of laws, including those relating to coercion, right of entry, strike pay and freedom of association, just to name a few. It has also initiated proceedings in courts and with Fair Work Australia. Investigations over the past financial year discovered over 900 contraventions of Commonwealth workplace relations law, with $2.5 million worth of penalties being imposed by the courts and Fair Work Australia. Master Builders Australia said in relation to these penalties:
The Parliament cannot ignore such court findings and convictions and should not agree to any watering down of the current powers.
From its inception through until the end of May 2011, the Australian Building and Construction Commission has successfully prosecuted 74 cases, and it has been unsuccessful in only eight of those. Most of these cases have been in Victoria, where there is a long and bitter history of disputation in the building and construction industry. In the financial year 2010-11, 402 investigations were conducted by the Australian Building and Construction Commission into alleged workplace relations law contraventions, 72 of those being in my home state of Queensland. In 2010, there were only 20 investigations in Queensland. During this period, there were 354 new investigations, compared to the 2010 number of 241, and the 2009 number of 213. There were also 107 continuing investigations, compared to 48 in the previous year. The picture that this very clearly paints is that there has been an increasing number of investigations conducted by the Australian Building and Construction Commission over more recent years. It is clear from that pattern—there is clear evidence—that there is a genuine, ongoing need for the Australian Building and Construction Commission to be retained and to continue. It also, as part of its activities, began 134 sham contracting investigations and recovered $127,479 in wages—again, significant amounts. The increase in the number of investigations can be put down to the Australian Building and Construction Commission now being able to conduct full service regulation. This was only achieved in March last year after it assumed responsibility for wage and entitlement claims from the Fair Work Ombudsman.
These facts show the effectiveness of, and the hard work that has been done by, the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner in bringing a degree of certainty to an industry that has otherwise been characterised by, as the Cole commission described it, a certain degree of lawlessness. However, this government has recently seen the number of working days lost in the building and construction industry skyrocket to 44 days per thousand employees, the highest level since 2005. This is clearly disappointing, considering that the number of working days lost per thousand employees fell from 224 in 2004 to 24 in 2006, this being the time period where the Australian Building and Construction Commission was first set up.
It would be inappropriate and unrealistic to believe that all disallowed activities on building sites can be completely eradicated. The National Electrical and Communications Association also said in November last year that there is still some degree of lawlessness in the building and construction industry but:
… the ABCC has been effective in removing the worst instances. Removing the ABCC or emasculating its powers will see increased inappropriate behaviour and this will lead to the costs of projects blowing out and delays in construction.
I support those comments.
The benefits that have come about due to the Australian Building and Construction Commission's activities are not restricted to regulation of inappropriate action in the industry. During the period of time since the creation of the ABCC, the building and construction industry has seen a 10 per cent increase in productivity, an economic welfare gain of $5.5 billion per year, reduced inflation of about 1.2 per cent and a 1.5 per cent increase in gross domestic product. The creation of the Australian Building and Construction Commission has also had the effect of reducing the cost of construction around Australia by 20 to 25 per cent, with project delays being significantly reduced.
As an independent body, the commission is currently separate from Fair Work Australia and the Fair Work Ombudsman. It has the ability to investigate contraventions in workplace relations law and also to promote harmonious working environments within the entirety of the building and construction industry. Yet the government is willing to strip back all the ground that has been made by the commission in recent years, even in the face of the commission's success.
Although this bill may have national impacts, it will potentially directly impact my electorate of McPherson. On the Gold Coast, the construction industry has traditionally been a strong contributor to the local economy, yet there has been a downturn in the industry due to economic circumstances, probably significantly for the past two or three years. The abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission will return the building and construction industry to the days of work stoppages, heavy handed industrial tactics and project uncertainty. With the current economic climate, the Gold Coast's building and construction industry cannot withstand the introduction of another impediment to future success, nor can the wider Gold Coast economy, the Queensland economy or the Australian economy.
Removing the Australian Building and Construction Commission as well as the protections it offers workers in those industries will merely be a return to the old days of union run and dominated construction sites. This cannot be allowed to happen, not just for the sake of efficiency and certainty in the building and construction industry but for the benefit of communities and the nation. I support the continuation of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.
I rise in the House today to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. This bill provides the framework for cooperative and productive relations in the building industry. It is based on the recommendations of Justice Wilcox QC, who said the new regulator should retain coercive information-gathering powers while removing the existing higher penalties for building industry participants for breaches of industrial law and introducing safeguards in relation to the power to compulsorily obtain information and documents.
I am proud to be here today to say that after six years we are on the verge of seeing the end of the Australian Building Construction Commissioner, the ABCC. The ABCC was created by the Howard government in 2005 to enforce its laws and 'criminalise' much union related activity on construction sites. It was:
… provided with powers to enforce workplace laws, to address the problems that the building and construction industry encounters.
… Its key objective is to ensure that workplace relations laws are enforced in building and construction industry workplaces.
To give a bit of history, its predecessor, the Building Industry Taskforce, was set up in the wake of the politically driven Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry. It is okay for employers to salt away their capital and withdraw their labour but it is a criminal act for employees to do the same, under the Liberal's law. While its brief was to oversee adherence to industrial law, the ABCC evidently fails to investigate or prosecute employers for underpaying workers or breaching safety regulations. Rather, it has been alleged that it targets individual workers involved in union or collective activity not strictly related to EBA negotiations.
This bill will abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and create a new agency, the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, to regulate the building and construction industry. The new regulator will provide information, advice and assistance to all building industry employers and employees regarding their rights and obligations under the law, as well as seek to improve the standard of occupational health and safety in the building and construction industry. As Minister Evans said, the inspectorate will have the powers and responsibilities to ensure employers, organisations, employees and trade unions abide by their obligations under the law. The bill implements the key recommendations of the report Transition to Fair Work Australia for the Building and Construction Industry by the honourable Murray Wilcox QC. Mr Wilcox undertook a considerable amount of work, and I take this opportunity to thank him for his efforts and his thoughtful and balanced report.
The inspectorate will retain the coercive information gathering powers. The bill removes existing higher penalties for the building industry participants for breaches of industrial law and introduces safeguards in relation to the power to compulsorily obtain information and documents. The bill creates an office of Independent Assessor who will on application by stakeholders determine that compulsory information gathering powers will not apply to a project. The bill includes a three-year sunset provision for the compulsory information gathering powers. A review will occur prior to the sunset of the compulsory information gathering powers. The bill does not impact on the provisions that establish the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner or the OH&S Accreditation Scheme.
At the heart of Labor's new workplace relations system is fairness. It is what we have strived for and it is something I am very proud of. Under the Liberal Party's Work Choices scheme, protection from being sacked unfairly was stripped away from more than three million workers. Thousands of workers were pushed onto AWA individual contracts: 70 per cent lost shift loadings, 68 per cent lost annual leave loadings, 65 per cent lost penalty rates, 49 per cent lost overtime loadings and 25 per cent no longer had public holidays. Those on the other side of the chamber should hang their head in shame for what they did to everyday working Australians. I cannot comprehend why they would have devised and voted for such a destructive scheme. As workplace relations minister, the member for Warringah actually opposed a paid parental leave scheme and said it would be introduced over his government's dead body. We cannot trust the Liberal Party on workplace relations.
Liberals seem to think that the stick will make the donkey work harder, but they are wrong. There is significant criticism of the former Howard government's ABCC, especially its targeting of building unions, by the wider community and by the labour movement. Here, today, we are taking a stand. We are creating a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry. Labor understands that the construction industry contains unique challenges for both employers and employees. As a result we have always supported a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all parties. The government believes that the ABCC in its current form is not an appropriate regulator and needs to be replaced with a new body that is part of the mainstream Fair Work system. This new regulator will operate in accordance with community expectations of a fair and just workplace relations system. I say here today that the abolition of the ABCC will not result in a return to the industrial disputes of last century, because the building industry inspectorate will continue to regulate the industry fairly and effectively. The opposition is committed to pursuing extreme workplace relations laws rather than ensuring lawful conduct by all parties in the building industry. We cannot trust the opposition on workplace laws and fairness.
Construction workers want to be treated the same as all other workers—not be subjected to the stress of arbitrary interrogations which can hang over their heads for months. Mr Noonan, National Secretary of the CFMEU's Construction Branch, said that since the Australian Building and Construction Commission was created by the Howard government it had achieved nothing except intimidation of workers in the construction industry. Right across Australia construction workers have been under attack from the legacy of Howard's industrial relations laws. As the Australian Building and Construction Commission continues to use its draconian powers, I stand here today with the aim of putting an end to this.
The International Labour Organisation, the UN body charged with looking after workers' rights, has taken aim at the ABCC on several occasions in the past, but earlier last year its condemnation was expressed in the strongest possible terms. The ILO's Committee of Experts, an eminent body of labour law jurists, noted:
… the manner in which the ABCC carries out its activities seems to have led to the exclusion of workers in the building and construction industry from the protection that the labour inspection system ought to secure for these workers under the applicable laws, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that the priorities of the ABCC (or the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate) are effectively reoriented …
We believe the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner needs to be replaced with a body that is part of the mainstream Fair Work system. Only considered, fair and balanced laws will create the sort of long-term change that the industry needs if it is to create jobs and make a positive contribution to national productivity and prosperity.
The building and construction industry is a critical sector of our economy with immediate and direct impacts on jobs, growth and productivity. Its importance is demonstrated by the scale and scope of construction funding the Australian government has committed through the BER projects. Those opposite of course opposed the GFC package. They opposed the jobs it would create and the facilities it provided. In Tasmania, Liberal state parliamentarians and even Liberal candidates for the next election have been happy to attend BER opening ceremonies, even though the initiative was voted against by the Liberal Party.
We know that the Labor Party is the only party that supports a fair and effective industrial relations system. We abolished Work Choices and created a balanced industrial relations system that returns fairness to our workplaces, while boosting national productivity. All the independent evidence shows that our industrial system is working well for employers and for workers. We have very low unemployment: more than 750,000 jobs have been created since we came to office, with 120,400 in the last 12 months alone. Wage growth has been moderate and fair. Industrial disputes remain at low levels: days lost due to industrial disputes are a third of the number during the Howard years. During the Howard years, 13.6 working days were lost per 1,000 workers per quarter; under this Labor government, 3.6 working days have been lost per 1,000 workers per quarter. Record levels of successful workplace agreements are being completed. The way we handled the Qantas situation in 2011 demonstrates the effectiveness and fairness of the laws put in place by this Labor government. The Labor government stands for fairness. It abolished Work Choices and ended individual contracts that stripped away Australian pay and conditions; set up Fair Work Australia, an independent umpire, to help resolve workplace disputes; introduced a new no disadvantage test to make sure workplace agreements left workers better off; and provided a fair minimum safety net for Australian employees, comprising 10 national employment standards and a modern award system.
As Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, sought to trade government support for the car industry for them implementing a radical IR agenda, including individual contracts. He insisted the car companies set up a $1 million fund to sue workers and unions. Later, as Minister for Health and Ageing, he tried the same thing, asking drug companies who received PBS income to implement AWAs. And let's not forget that he refused to release documents detailing the government's involvement in the protracted meat dispute at G&K O'Connor, where union members were locked out for nine months and endured pay cuts of up to 60 per cent.
If he ever becomes Prime Minister, I have no doubt in my mind that he will bring back Work Choices. He said on 19 March 2008:
The Howard Government's industrial legislation, it was good for wages, it was good for jobs, and it was good for workers.
We all understand that Work Choices is in the Liberal Party's DNA. They do not believe in protections and regulations at work. They do not believe in protecting basic rights such as holiday pay, sick pay, redundancy, overtime, and health and safety. Shame on them. No matter what they try to call it, they will bring back its key elements—stripping away basic employee rights such as unfair dismissal protections.
The Gillard Labor government believes in making this nation stronger and fairer. The government understands that only considered, fair and balanced laws will create the sort of long-term change Australia's building and construction industry needs if it is to flourish, create jobs and make a positive contribution to national productivity and prosperity. The Gillard Labor government is working hard at building a strong economy, a sustainable environment and a fair society that provides every Australian the opportunity to prosper and succeed in life. What the Liberals do not get is that putting people under threat reduces productivity and industry. Our first priority is keeping the economy strong—protecting jobs, driving new growth and creating opportunity for all so that no person and no place is left behind. We are striving for fairness and balance. I commend the bill to the House.
It is a great pleasure to be able to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. The situation we find ourselves in is that we have a leftover issue to deal with in relation to the terrible Work Choices regime. Here we see the next step and the healing hand of Labor in dealing with the deep and damaging wound caused by that Work Choices period. It was a shameful period with a surprise package sprung on the electorate without a mandate.
It is something to reflect upon that we have heard from the coalition that they generally supported the mandate that we had to deal with the Work Choices issue, and yet they have strongly opposed this last remaining measure to deal with one of its most damaging aspects. It was an aspect that I found particularly abhorrent, as I know many members on our side did. This was a mechanism, the ABCC, that targeted a particular component of the industrial relations sector, a particular element of that component being focused purely on construction industry workers in a totally disproportionate manner. There are incidents and issues in certain locations in the sector but it is, generally speaking, a well-functioning industry that was at the time achieving productivity gains and which still is. I will come back to that point.
This measure that we are discussing today introduces a new mechanism, the building industry inspectorate, to replace the ABCC. It will get the balance right in dealing with the issues that we know emerge on the employer side of this equation as well. There have been many of those. I have witnessed many of them in my proximity to colleagues in the ACT and the loss of life experienced on building sites. It has also been my great privilege to represent many CFMEU members in my region. Prior to the redistribution, a large number of them were working in the Carter Holt Harvey and Hyne timber mills in the Tumut and Tumbarumba region and down at the South East Fibre Exports facility in Eden. And there are many construction workers who live in Queanbeyan, Bungendore and Jerrabomberra who commute across to worksites in the ACT and around my region. These are men and women enjoying the benefits of collective agreements negotiated with their employers through good partnerships, producing good productivity outcomes with that team approach to an industry, which we know is going to always offer the best potential for productivity outcomes.
This measure will even out the oversight of the industry given that we obviously have issues that still remain that people are concerned about to do with the oversight of the industry. I am personally of the belief that the day is fast approaching when there will be no need to make any distinction in relation to this sector of our economy. In particular, I have always been deeply concerned about the compulsory examination power that existed under the ABCC. With this reform there will be a sunset clause attached to that aspect, and the belief is that in three years time there will be no longer any plausible argument as to why such powers need to exist. These sorts of powers should be extremely carefully considered in any democracy. The circumstances in which you would resort to powers like this have to be exigent and very focused on limiting their duration and application. It has always deeply troubled me that these sorts of provisions have existed. I look forward to their demise and there being no longer a need to resort to them. So we will then see the last of some of the abhorrent aspects of this Howard measure, which was in fact designed to target workers, destroy their representative capacity and destroy unionism in this country. That was the overall plan.
I well remember my opponent in the 2007 campaign, the former member for Eden-Monaro, saying on radio that unions knew that if Labor was not successful in that campaign their days would be numbered, that it would be all over. This was the strategy and that was the tactic: to destroy the representative ability of workers in this country—a more reprehensible strategy could not be contemplated.
With these provisions in this legislation we will also see the ability to deal with the situation of the employers—and we have seen lots of unlawful conduct associated with the construction industry on the part of employers. We have seen underpayment of wages and sham contracting. In recent times in this region, we have seen lots of incidents of unsatisfactory practices in relation to work and safety. I commend the colleagues that I have worked with who looked after the interests of those workers in the CFMEU, who do such a wonderful job not only in representing the interests of their members and promoting a prosperous industry but also in the added support that they provide to our community and our region. They have been involved in so many activities, charitable and otherwise, that they are integral to the quality of life of our community. I salute what the CFMEU have contributed to my region and to the interests of the workers in that region.
Coming back to the context in which this legislation is being introduced and curing the legacy of the Work Choices years, we know that Mr Abbott has stated that Work Choices is dead and buried or cremated, but we have seen the reintroduction of the concept through the code word 'flexibility'. What flexibility means to the coalition is returning to those days when the worst impositions of Work Choices had a devastating effect on people. Why is that? Why do they resort to these measures? They talk about productivity in the economy. To the coalition, we know that productivity solutions always mean making the worker carry the burden of those productivity gains. The easy solution for them will always be to cut wages, cut jobs and support productivity gains in whichever way they can through the hide of the worker.
When Mr Abbott talks about signing pledges in blood, he means he is signing his pledges in workers' blood. He does not support the preservation of jobs—the hundreds of thousands of jobs that were obviously saved through the GFC, the hundreds of thousands of jobs attached to the automotive industry, or the thousands of jobs we have heard the shadow Treasurer talk about axing from the Public Service in my region alone, which would devastate our local economy, as the coalition did back in 1996 when they sent us into recession.
We should really focus on the true story of productivity. There are many fine economic commentators who have burst the balloon on the issue that industrial relations is the heart of productivity and accounts for where this country is now. It just is not true. Of course improvements can always be made to industrial relations regimes. Circumstances change, economies transition, and you always need to keep an eye on reforms that might be necessary.
Where we are now has been greatly emphasised by a number of very credible commentators such as Alan Kohler, Ross Gittins and George Megalogenis, people you would pay attention to on economic matters—not, I am afraid, Larry, Curly and Moe, the member for Goldstein, the member for North Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition. Their credibility has been absolutely blown out of the water in recent times. Not only have we seen the farcical 'pass the parcel' situation of the budget reply at the previous budget; also we saw their credibility blown out of the water in the 2010 campaign with the Howarth so-called 'audit' that was not an audit and disciplinary action had to be taken in relation to that. That was a farce, because they were not able to test the assumptions that underpinned the estimates. If you can test the assumptions then the figure, if you pardon the expression, is bollocks. We have seen their credibility blown out of the water. Since then we have seen the estimates in relation to Nauru done on the back of a coaster by a catering company. I am not sure what we are going to see next. Perhaps they will subcontract their next budget reply to McDonald's.
If we look at what Alan Kohler, for example, has written in relation to productivity—and we are talking about multifactor productivity, the relationship between capital and labour which is the only really important and relevant factor to look at—we have seen that the productivity figures at the moment, taking into account all the sectors, have been skewed in relation to the impact of investment and issues in the mining sector. Certainly, there has been a decline in mining productivity and the reason for that are the high levels of investment in the mining and utilities industries that have not yet come on-stream. That has also been affected by the GDP growth, which has been slower during the GFC.
The massive investment in the mining industry that we have seen is important because the injection of capital relating to productivity outputs of labour has been extremely skewed by this massive investment. It is the mining and quarrying sector that is skewing the overall productivity picture in this country. If you look at manufacturing, construction, hospitality and real estate, they all improved their growth in productivity between the 1990s and the 2000s. This is the true picture.
When we talk about productivity, what we mean is facilitating it through investment in infrastructure, investment in skills and particularly through promotion of innovation. These are the key areas. We want to see wages maintained. We cannot engage in a race to the bottom with China and India on labour costs. That is just not possible and is not desirable for our country. We know that there are huge possibilities open to us in innovation. This government have been investing not only in innovation but also in addressing those long-neglected infrastructure and skills issues that the previous Howard government let slide during those Rip Van Winkle years. We know that, more broadly, growth in non-mining productivity has picked up and not slowed. Clearly, the impact of industrial relations reform has just not been what some of the commentators in the coalition have claimed. Another key factor underpinning the government's approach has been research by the University of New South Wales, Australian National University, Macquarie University and the Copenhagen Business School, which examined 77 businesses in the services sector with more than 5,600 employees. They found that the best performers are better at innovation. They generate more new ideas and are better at capturing and assessing their employees' ideas. In consequence, they make more improvements to services and production processes, management structures and marketing methods. But some 'treat them mean to keep them keen' managers will be surprised that high-performing outfits do better when it comes to employee emotions. They have higher levels of job satisfaction, employee commitment and willingness to exert extra effort, and they have lower levels of anxiety, fear, depression and feelings of inadequacy. One of the bottom line consequences of this is low rates of staff turnover. As Ross Gittins points out in his analysis of that study, these are the keys to where smart employers need to go. Certainly those employers that encourage innovation and are open to criticism see it as a learning opportunity. They foster involvement and cooperation among staff and provide opportunities for them to engage and contribute to the long-term progression and development of their enterprise.
These management practices are what smart employers are doing. Through the clean energy future package we have seen this government open up a whole new field of potential, not only through the Carbon Farming Initiative—which has provided great opportunities for our agricultural sector in innovation and employment opportunities—but also through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, with the $10 billion that will be able to get behind loan guarantees and so on and will encourage the venture capital for a new economy that is in great demand the world over.
This is the real secret to the economic improvements in this country and these are the challenges ahead of us that we must face. This comes back to our philosophy of not treating workers as widgets in the way the coalition does. We do not believe that workers are simply commodities that cannot be dealt with as human beings. We will find a way to achieve our productivity gains without penalising the workers. We also intend to make sure that we keep the jobs—prosperous and satisfying jobs—growing in this economy through the investments we are making in infrastructure, in the clean energy package and also, most importantly, in the rollout of the National Broadband Network. It is absolutely beyond belief that someone like the Leader of the Nationals and the coalition are doing the regions of this country a disfavour. This is the great potential piece of infrastructure that will open up worlds of possibilities to regions like mine, where we will see things like the timber precinct in Bombala growing through the investment of $200 million by Dongwha-Tasco, who will not reach or develop the full potential of that project without the NBN underpinning it. This is what they have clearly indicated to us.
Beyond that, there are lots of innovative, new, non-polluting industries that will be associated with the NBN, because basically you can hang off that infrastructure in any location you choose in many industries without having to be tied to metro environments. For a region like mine and regions all over this country, the NBN will be a key factor in achieving the goals that we set for ourselves. That is what the government is all about: a rewarding, secure, prosperous future for our people.
I rise to speak this afternoon on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 and to argue passionately against its passage in this parliament. This bill impacts one of the most important sectors in our economy: the building and construction industry. This is an industry which employs almost a million people, it contributes 10 per cent to our GDP, and it supports the growth and prosperity of almost every other industry as well. We know, for example, that if construction costs are down then this flows through the entire economy in a positive way. It means that the input costs for most businesses are lower. On the other hand, if construction costs are up, the reverse applies. Then it means that every single business needs to have higher input costs in relation to their construction costs.
This bill goes directly to the productivity of this sector, it goes directly to the safety of this sector and it goes directly to the performance of the construction industry. Unfortunately, it has a negative impact on this sector in every sense of the word. Consequently, we on this side of the House are strongly opposed to the bill.
It is well known on this side of the House and it is well known across Australia that unlawful behaviour exists on some building sites. It is well known, as ACCI has pointed out, that intimidation, threatening behaviour and disregard for the law have been part of the industry for some time, particularly in my home state of Victoria. In the mid-2000s, such was the extent of the public's concern, the industry's concern and the government's concern that a royal commission was established to get to the bottom of the problem and to work out how to tackle some of the unlawfulness which was occurring on building and construction sites. A royal commission was established, headed by Mr Cole QC. This commission found a number of things. It found that indeed the building and construction industry was characterised by widespread disregard of the law. Indeed, the royal commission, the highest form of government inquiry that we can have, found over 100 types of unlawful and inappropriate conduct occurring on building and construction sites across Australia.
It also found that existing authorities and agencies did not have sufficient power to properly tackle that unlawful behaviour. It went through in some detail particular case studies which showed exactly what was occurring on some of these sites. It showed exactly some of the payments that were made, some of the go-slow actions that were occurring, some of the union unlawfulness, some of the days lost, and indeed it showed that in some instances the entire existence of some companies in Australia was jeopardised and that hundreds of jobs did not eventuate because of the unlawfulness which was occurring on the construction sites. The Howard government took heed of the royal commission. It looked very closely at the recommendations of Mr Cole QC and, off the back of that report, established the Australian Building and Construction Commission to tackle unlawful behaviour. It wanted to establish a very robust independent authority that could aggressively tackle the unlawful behaviour Mr Cole had documented so thoroughly through his royal commission. The ABCC has had a dramatic impact—there is no doubt about that. It has been what we would characterise as the tough cop on the beat. It has taken a very strong stance against unlawful behaviour on building and construction sites and a very strong stance against union thuggery on building and construction sites.
Let us look at the results of this action. I am not saying that all of these improvements are due to the ABCC, but certainly it has had a considerable impact on the results I am about to outline. First of all, productivity has increased by 10 per cent since the introduction of the ABCC. We have had annual economic welfare gain from the sector of $5.5 billion. It has helped reduce inflation overall by 1.2 per cent. Since the ABCC was introduced, the sector has helped increase GDP by 1.5 per cent. The following statistic is quite remarkable. The number of working days lost annually per 1,000 employees in the construction industry fell from 224 days in 2004 to 24 days in 2006, just a year after the ABCC was introduced. It is a remarkable impact. Building costs have fallen by 20 to 25 per cent. As I mentioned earlier, lower building costs flow through the entire economy. Almost every single business relies on some sort of office space, some sort of building, which has to be constructed and if building costs are lower it means the business's input costs are consequently lower, and it can be more profitable and employ more people. So the ABCC has undoubtedly been tremendously successful in the overall effort to tackle unlawful behaviour, to improve productivity in the industry and to consequently reduce building costs as well.
Nearly everyone has benefited from this. Clearly the industry itself has benefited because it is now a more productive industry with fewer days lost due to industrial action and the like. Consumers have also benefited because, with building and construction costs down by 20 to 25 per cent, they are also beneficiaries of the actions of the ABCC. Workers have benefited through higher wages, which can only be sustainable through higher productivity. Many of them have also benefited from a safer workplace, knowing that the laws will be abided by. Across all sectors—whether it is the industry, consumers, workers or downstream businesses—nearly everybody has been a beneficiary of the operation of the ABCC.
What does this bill before us actually do in relation to the ABCC? Remarkably, it abolishes this very body that has been so successful. It strips away the protections ensuring workers can work in a safe and lawful environment and replaces those protections with what we would consider to be a toothless tiger. The new body which will replace the ABCC will not be an independent body—it will be established within Fair Work Australia and it will be controlled by the minister; a minister under a Labor government who invariably will have been a union official and invariably will be reliant in some respects on the union to retain his or her ministry. If this bill passes it is almost inevitable that it will have a negative consequence on some of the things I have talked about. Inevitably it will contribute to more days lost on building sites and go-slows on major projects. It will have a negative impact on losses and productivity.
It is not as if there are no longer any problems on business sites. ACCI points out that in the last year alone there were 402 investigations into alleged breaches of laws. I know in my own state of Victoria there have been 130 days lost at the Wonthaggi desalination plant due to industrial action, and many commentators argue that there is basically a go-slow going on down there. ACCI believes this bill will effectively shut down the ABCC and hand over a watered-down set of powers to a specialist Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, which it suggests will send all the wrong signals to industry participants.
Why is the Labor Party doing this? The ABCC has been a tremendously successful body. It directly came out of an independent royal commission headed up by a very respected QC and it has been very effective in its operation. I mentioned before that nearly everyone has benefited from the operation of the ABCC—the industry, workers, downstream businesses and consumers. The organisations that have not been beneficiaries have been the unions, which in some respects have had some of their unlawful activity curbed by the operation of the ABCC. As you would appreciate, many businesses are doing it exceptionally tough at the moment. The construction industry is doing it tough in many places, with growth figures flatlining. This is the most inappropriate moment to be introducing further measures that will make it tougher for that industry. This government has already introduced a number of measures that make it tough for the building and construction industry and indeed tough for businesses overall. We have had upward pressure on interest rates because of the four highest budget deficits in Australian history over the last four years. We have had a retightening of labour laws, which many businesses say is making it difficult to properly manage their businesses in a fair way. We have had overburdensome regulations introduced in many other areas. And of course the granddaddy of them all will be coming our way on 1 July and will apply to every single business across Australia: the carbon tax. While businesses are doing it tough, while we read in the newspapers almost daily about job losses in various sectors, the government is going ahead with some of these measures that just make it tougher for industry to operate.
This bill before us is not a good bill. This bill attempts to fix a problem that does not exist. Rather, the Australian Building and Construction Commission has been an immensely effective, independent organisation that has tackled unlawful behaviour, contributed to increased productivity, contributed to a safer workplace and contributed to lower construction costs, which flow through to everybody. We should be opposing this bill before us.
I am very pleased to speak in this debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011, because for me it represents one of the most stark contrasts between us on the government benches and the conservatives opposite. It really goes to the heart of how political parties recognise what it means to be an ordinary worker in Australia and the things that really matter to ordinary workers in Australia—namely, protection of their rights at work, the assurance that they will continue to have a job and the assurance that their rights at work will not be unreasonably interfered with. That is entirely what this debate is about and has always been about. So I am very pleased to be able to speak on a bill that will have the effect of abolishing the ABCC.
The ABCC is one of the many legacies of the Howard government that has seen workers targeted. It really saw workers as the enemy. It was the masthead of the Howard government's industrial relations—and it appears, from the tone of the debate today from those opposite, that it continues to be the masthead of the Leader of the Opposition's policies for Australian workers.
Earlier I caught a little bit of the contribution of the member for Mayo. In addition to all the usual ideologically driven arguments that come from the opposition about the rights of workers and about ensuring that we are tough on workers, the member included a line that, as I recall, said something about the ABCC legislation bringing the rule of law back to the industry. I find that deeply ironic. It seems to me that this debate is entirely about arbitrarily depriving one group of people in our society of certain rights. My conception of the rule of law has always been that it is about ensuring that no-one in a society is arbitrarily deprived of their rights. So it is extraordinary to me that that was the tenor of the argument coming from the member for Mayo earlier today.
This government committed to abolishing the ABCC. It did so at the election, and today I am very pleased to be able to speak to the bill that will achieve that. It really is time for the ABCC to go. At the core of Labor's industrial relations system is fairness. The ABCC, from its very inception, represented everything that was unfair in the Howard government's workplace policies. In my electorate I have certainly had a number of constituents who work in the construction industry and who have come up to see me at mobile offices to tell me about their unease with the ABCC. In addition to concerns about all the practical things the ABCC been capable of doing in the past, the ABCC is symbolic. It says to these workers that they are undervalued, that they are devalued, that their rights are not regarded as significant—certainly by the Howard government—and that they as construction workers are vulnerable to having their industrial rights interfered with.
Although I know that some changes were made to the operation of the ABCC in 2010, including some changes that reflected the recommendations of Justice Murray Wilcox in relation to the use of coercive powers, construction workers still know that the Howard government originally established the ABCC for the express purpose of targeting them. They do hard work and they do work that can be dangerous, and they expect that their industrial rights will be upheld and respected.
We made a commitment to the Australian people that we would replace the ABCC with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry. Apart from anything else in this debate, it is simply the case that the ABCC is not an appropriate regulator. It needs to be replaced with a new body that is part of the mainstream fair work system, a system that is working well.
The result of the 2007 federal election made the public's intentions about their work rights very clear. It told us that the public was not prepared to tolerate the kind of arbitrary and harsh interference with their work rights that the Howard government was trying to put over. It told us that the public understood that workers, particularly construction workers, were being targeted by the Howard government for purely ideological reasons—because it was always Howard's plans to smash the unions and to smash workers, just as it is the Leader of the Opposition's plan to do so today. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to play nice and pretend that he is interested in workers at the moment—manufacturing workers in particular, it seems. The fact that he is keeping up this rather elaborate pretence while at the same time abandoning support for the car industry and the manufacturing workers whom it supports is a truly valiant effort, but I do not think that the Australian public are quite so easily taken in. They know that, at any opportunity, the Liberals will take a swipe at our Fair Work system and that, at any opportunity, the Liberals will undermine Fair Work Australia. We saw it during the Qantas dispute and we hear it almost daily in their remarks in this place.
Even the process of developing this legislation shows the stark contrast between Labor and the conservatives. This legislation has been developed through consultation, with expert contributions from Justice Murray Wilcox, consultation with industry and, most importantly, dialogue with working people. The government carried out extensive consultation with industry, with unions and with state and territory governments in 2008-09 as part of the development of this legislation for the previous parliament. Justice Wilcox also consulted widely with stakeholders in the building and construction industry as part of his 2009 report.
We on this side know that our construction industry is critical to the national economy, to jobs and to productivity. When the Liberals put in place the ABCC, they took a heavy-handed and clumsy approach to the regulation of an industry which is responsible not only for the livelihoods of its workers and their families but also for the health of our economy. It was driven by an obsession with diluting workers' rights.
The bill before us abolishes the ABCC and establishes a new regulator, the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, which will operate in accordance with community expectations and a fair and just workplace relations system. The Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate will operate under a new framework for the industry, which will be confined to on-site building work.
The bill also removes existing building-industry-specific laws that had provided higher penalties for building industry participants for breaches of industrial law and broader circumstances under which industrial action attracts penalties in relation to the building industry. The new regulator will also provide information, advice and assistance to all building industry participants regarding their rights and their obligations under the law as well as seeking to improve the standard of occupational health and safety in the construction industry.
Most importantly, in my view, this bill contains a number of new provisions and protections—provisions such as those which ensure that a person can be represented by a lawyer of their choice and that legal professional privilege and public interest immunity are available. New provisions are also going to be put in place to ensure payment of legal, travel and accommodation expenses and any earnings lost due to giving evidence. The bill also includes provisions which repeal the previous compulsory interview confidentiality undertakings which prevent interviewees telling other parties what took place at an interview. I believe all of these things are extremely important protections and I am very pleased to see that they are being put in place in the bill that is before us.
The topic of coercive powers has come up already in today's debate, and it has certainly been a subject of considerable discussion in the community, and rightly so. As previous members on this side have reflected, when powers such as these are being put in place, we as a community and we as a parliament need to reflect on why they are being put in place, whether it is appropriate that they remain in place and for how long. Certainly due consideration has been given to all those things in the construction of the bill before us today.
I know that there have been calls, including calls this morning, for the coercive powers provisions to be removed now, and I do hear those calls. While coercive powers remain in the bill before us on the basis of the recommendations made by Justice Murray Wilcox, it is important to understand the kinds of safeguards that are being put in place, including external oversight of the exercise of those powers. I will mention a few of those safeguards today, but they are fairly extensive.
The safeguards will require that a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is satisfied that a case has been made for the use of those powers on each occasion that they are used. As I mentioned, the safeguards require that an individual is able to be represented by a lawyer of their choice. Provisions exist for legal professional privilege and public interest immunity to apply, and safeguards apply in relation to the reimbursement of people who are summonsed to give evidence and to provide information at an examination.
The safeguards also go on to require that all examinations are to be videotaped and that the Commonwealth Ombudsman will monitor and review those examinations and provide reports to parliament on the exercise of those powers. There is an additional safeguard that, prior to allowing an examination to occur, the presidential member of the AAT needs to be satisfied of a series of criteria, including, amongst other things, a requirement that an investigation is actually underway and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person to whom the application relates has the information or the documents that are being sought through investigation and is capable of giving evidence relevant to the investigation. It also requires that the presidential member of the AAT consider whether there are other methods of obtaining the relevant information and whether they have actually been undertaken or are appropriate.
Finally, it is extremely important to note that there is to be a sunset in relation to the use of coercive powers, to apply at the end of three years. As I have said, given the gravity of the use of coercive powers in any circumstances, it is extremely important that there is a timely review of the use of those coercive powers, that there be appropriate safeguards put in place for the use of those coercive powers and that they be considered regularly and reviewed. All of those things are features of the bill before us today.
Ultimately this bill is about restoring the confidence of a group of ordinary workers in the construction industry about their industrial rights. It is about restoring balance to the rights of participants in the construction industry as a whole. It is about respecting their rights under a reasonable fair work system, rather than the extreme, unfair and ideologically driven system that was put forward by the Howard government and seems, unfortunately, to be being revisited daily by those opposite. The opposition want to see a return to Work Choices. They want to see a return to those things that were rejected outright by the Australian public in their decisions at the 2007 and 2010 elections in relation to their industrial rights. None of this surprises me, because they are out of touch on so many issues. They have revealed themselves particularly in recent days in their unwillingness to ask questions about matters of economic policy or matters relating to the future of this country in areas as diverse as the minerals resource rent tax, health and education—all of those things which we on this side are regularly concerned about. They show themselves to be out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Australian workers today in their position in relation to this piece of legislation.
They have also shown themselves to be out of touch in relation to ordinary workers on other occasions, including in their opposition to the superannuation increase that will occur under the government's proposal for a minerals resource rent tax. They have no regard for the circumstances of ordinary workers now. Nor do those on the other side have any regard for the circumstances that ordinary Australian workers might find themselves in on their retirement. We on this side want to ensure that ordinary Australian workers have the funds to be able to enjoy their retirement. Those on the other side have no regard for the superannuation arrangements of ordinary Australian workers or for ensuring the continued prosperity of ordinary individuals.
During the global financial crisis we saw more evidence that those on the other side have no regard for the jobs of workers in this country. Indeed, there were some substantial and notable absences during the debate in relation to the surplus and the way in which it might support jobs for workers in this country. Those on the other side have no plan for investment in new technologies and new industries while those on this side have a plan for the future of ordinary Australian workers as we invest in the National Broadband Network, and inevitably the industry that that will generate and as we encourage a cleaner energy future through the clean energy future package, and all of the things that that will mean for the industries and workers of the future. On all fronts, those opposite have nothing to say on the rights, continued employment, prosperity, retirement income, health or education of workers.
Before I start to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011, I would like to respond to the diatribe that we just heard. In my 18 months as the member for Herbert, not one worker has come into my office telling me that they have been done over by the ABCC. What I have had is a lot of builders coming to me and telling me that the red tape that this government and the state government are imposing on the industry is killing the industry. What I see in the industry is people being paid above award wages because employers want to keep good workers. The ABCC is not anti-worker; it is pro-work.
I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. The purpose of this bill is to abolish the successful Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, the ABCC, and replace it with a new agency, the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate. It also provides for a new independent assessor's office, which will be able to determine what examination notice papers should apply to specific projects. It also removes laws related to the building industry that provide for higher penalties on those found to have breached industrial law and a wider set of conditions that attract these penalties.
The coalition established the ABCC back in 2005 in response to the Cole royal commission's findings of rampant unlawful and inappropriate industrial conduct in the construction industry. Part of those findings emphasised the lack of powers and resources that the regulatory body had at the time and the consequences of this. The ABCC has been the policeman of the industry, dealing with these problems in a tough but fair and balanced manner so that heavy-handed tactics are no longer what the industry is known for. The industry cannot afford to return to the days when unlawful tactics became rife as a result of weak oversight bodies.
It is clear that this bill is another example of the Labor Party giving in to the unions, their lords and masters. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union does not like the ABCC because it has been effective at holding militant industrial relations antics to account. The government does not want to scrap this for the good of the construction industry; they want to scrap it for the good of the union, regardless of the outcome.
You want to put workers under threat.
Member for Bass, how many people in Tasmania have a job, mate? Over the past year, we have seen a raft of industrial action in which people have not played by the rules. The last thing that we need right now is to abolish the watchdog responsible for ensuring that either side in an industrial dispute does not get away with underhanded tactics. The construction industry has a bleak history in this area in Australia. A tough commissioner was needed to clean this up and the ABCC has done that. Under their watch, productivity in the construction industry has increased by 10 per cent and inflation has reduced by 1.2 per cent. Replacing this with a new weaker inspectorate threatens to return the industry to the bad old days of devious union activity that hurts business and the economy.
On top of that, unlike the independent ABCC the new building inspectorate will be controlled by the minister. Everybody knows that independence is critical to ensuring that any workplace relations body is fair and balanced. That has played a big part in why the ABCC has been so successful. This bill will also allow for ABCC powers to be switched off on specific work sites. Absurd as it sounds, this means that unions will be able to try and have the law simply not apply to that workplace.
Townsville is a rapidly growing city and as such its construction industry is a key part of the local economy and the local community. The city is continuously expanding as new homes and new suburbs are built to cater for the population growth while the opportunities in the North Queensland economy have led to a number of business construction projects as well. Changes that threaten the construction industry have big consequences for the city. I have been speaking to builders across Townsville and I have heard their concerns about these changes.
Darrell Gribble of Liveconstruction lamented the burden of overregulation on the industry and the effect that it has on their ability to their job. I have listened to people express concerns about the risk that a weaker industry watchdog poses in terms of expanding the access of unions to workplaces and the impact that this will have on their work and on their productivity. Adrian Gabrielli of Gabrielli Constructions told me how worried he and other builders are about the consequences for their workplaces and about the impact that these changes will have on construction costs. Only trouble can come when you do not have a policeman on the watch. As he pointed out, all big businesses have had to bend to unreasonable demands issued by unions and this change will just give them more scope to wield their power, leaving building companies at their mercy. The system that we have at the moment has kept fairness in the building industry while allowing businesses to do their jobs instead of coming up against unions intent on stirring up trouble rather than raising genuine issues.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I wish to congratulate and pay tribute to a number of constituents in my Brisbane Electorate who received Order of Australia awards on Australia Day: Mr Simon Bartlett, for services to engineering, particularly to the electricity supply industry; Mr Michael Baumann, for services to the community of Queensland as a magistrate and through contributions to court procedures and practices; Mr Robert Brice, for services to the tourism industry; Mr David Russell QC, for services to the National Party of Australia and to politics, taxation law and legal education and the community; Mr James McGowan, for services to public administration, through the development and implementation of public sector management and training reforms; Dr Edward Street, for services to dentistry and to the dental profession, to medicine and to the international community.
I also congratulate Professor The Hon. Michael Lavarch, for distinguished services to the law and legal education, particularly in the areas of native title, human rights and constitutional law. Acknowledgements must also go to Dr Ernest Cramond MBE, for services to medicine as a general practitioner and through his great work through the AMA; and Mr Peter Brooke, for services to the community as a pilot with the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
As in previous years, this year's Order of Australia recipients have been recognised for their outstanding achievements and contributions in a broad range of fields and endeavours. I wish to congratulate each and every one of you for your contribution, as well as all past recipients. (Time expired)
The Convergence Review's findings and recommendations are imminent. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know my longstanding campaign against concentration of media ownership in our country. I believe, like all of us, that fair and balanced media reporting is essential for the public interest. That is why I was concerned last week when Australia's wealthiest citizen, Ms Gina Rinehart, made a move on Fairfax, the second biggest media company in Australia. I think it is very important that Ms Rinehart tell all the citizens of Australia whether this is a friendly takeover to maximise the benefits for the shareholders or whether this is about getting control of the second biggest media company in our country to influence public opinion.
Moreover, I am concerned that editors and journalists might lose their jobs, because it is clear that Ms Rinehart has a massive conflict of interest. She is a fierce opponent of the minerals resources rent tax and she is a strong supporter of climate-change deniers. She is entitled to those views but, if she intends to take over the second biggest media company in Australia, she has to guarantee that she will have balanced reporting and that editors and journalists do not lose their jobs because they— (Time expired)
I rise to highlight a graphic example of Labor's gross economic incompetence. Members will agree there are many to choose from, but the government's failure to effectively administer the Infrastructure Employment Projects Program is hard to beat. Established as part of the government's economic stimulus package, it has received a damning assessment from the Auditor-General in a report that exposes a litany of failures in the way the program was devised and implemented. Millions of taxpayers' dollars have been spent on projects that were not properly evaluated. There was no attempt by the department to analyse the quality of proposals that were referred to it by the infrastructure minister's office. Local employment coordinators, who are the repositories of expertise in the relevant areas, were never consulted and not one project was completed in the designated priority employment areas.
It beggars belief that the minister has yet to be fully held to account for this fundamental breach of Commonwealth grant guidelines. Not only was money wasted but the goal of creating jobs was never achieved. In fact, no jobs were reported as created or retained until over a year into the program and, in the words of the Auditor-General, the program did not achieve its 'economic stimulus objectives in the anticipated time frame'. This is simply not good enough. It is time the government accepted the blame and held its head in shame.
Over recent months I have been gathering stories from colleagues who enjoy living on the north side of Canberra, in my electorate of Fraser. Senator Wong says, 'I love the north side because I can walk to Lonsdale Street Roasters, eat at Italian and Sons and see the balloons floating overhead as I drive across the bridge to work.'
The member for Parramatta says the Gungahlin area has 'some of the best bike paths around'. Senator Stephens tells me, 'I love to start my mornings with a brisk walk on Mount Ainslie.' And the Attorney-General enjoys using Dickson pool during summer. The member for Page says, 'I love living in Watson when I am in Canberra, as it has a nice suburban family-friendly feel. I am beside parkland and enjoy the walks and the birds, which are prolific and colourful.' The member for Kingston describes Dickson Chinese restaurants as 'fast, furious and yummy', and the member for Shortland heartily agrees. Senator Conroy found the north side 'a lovely place to grow up—relaxed and carefree'.
Yet, despite this, too few of those who work in Parliament House live on the trendy north side. Indeed, only 14 members of the Labor caucus live in the Fraser electorate—and I fear the same may be true of the other side of the House. The members for Canberra, Eden-Monaro and Lalor have good excuses, but what about the rest of you? Members of parliament and your staff: it is time to move to the fashionable right-bank of the Molonglo River.
I rise to speak on an important women's health initiative taking place right across the country. February marks Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, a national campaign aimed at raising awareness of the risks and symptoms associated with ovarian cancer. The campaign also aims to raise much-needed funds for Ovarian Cancer Australia's support and research programs.
Ovarian Cancer Australia is a not-for-profit organisation founded by people directly affected by the disease. Since 2001 it has worked tirelessly to ensure that every woman knows the symptoms of ovarian cancer. Sadly, more than 1,200 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year in Australia—that is three women every day, or one woman every 11 hours. Not much has been spoken about ovarian cancer. In fact, it has been labelled a 'silent killer' because there is no early detection test or screening, so awareness is imperative. Throughout February, Ovarian Cancer Australia invites the community to host an 'afternoon teal' or 'cockteal' with friends and family to help spread awareness of the disease and its symptoms.
This month I will be supporting my good friend and Northern Territory Ovarian Cancer Australia ambassador Alice Burton to spread awareness of the disease. A 'cockteal party' has been organised for Friday, 24 February in Darwin and women from across the Top End have been invited. Teal entertainment and raffles will be among the highlights, and our aim is to inform women of the importance of recognising the warning signs of ovarian cancer.
Just in response to my colleague the member for Fraser, the south side rules; the south side rocks! Maybe I should go and speak to the Governor-General and the Prime Minister about what they think about living on the south side. Anyway, I am not here to talk about that, much as I love the south side.
Organ donation is on our minds this month as we gear up for DonateLife Week in a fortnight. The theme for the week is 'Ask and know your loved one's donation wishes'. 2011 was a landmark year in consolidating infrastructure to support improvements in organ donation. As members will know, Australia is a leader in transplant surgery, with absolutely stunning outcomes, yet our donation rates are comparatively low. However, after a Labor injection of $151 million and associated resources into the sector, we are now seeing improvements.
Last year we had more organ donations than ever before, which translated to over 1,000 transplants. That is thanks to 337 families who agreed to donate their loved ones' organs, and I pay tribute to them. The ACT continued to lead the way, with 21.9 donors per million population. That is because our community regards discussion about organ donation as an integral part of life in the capital. We have also started this year well with a multiorgan donor in January 2012, and we have Gift of Life working with DonateLife to improve organ donation awareness.
We have the DonateLife Walk coming up on 22 February, which coincides with DonateLife Week. (Time expired)
I congratulate the City of Wanneroo Australia Day award winners for 2012. The Charles Searson youth award went to Marangaroo Primary School head girl Emily Youard, a member of the singing and dancing group, cheerleader and soloist in the school choir and a school leader committed to supporting the community. Congratulations, Emily, and keep up the good work for the future.
Also congratulations to Banksia Grove resident and Mr Spring in the Grove himself—Spring in the Grove is the local fete and fair—Bill McClelland for winning the City of Wanneroo's individual Australia Day award. Bill is a very hard worker who single-handedly organises Spring in the Grove, a great community event which is appreciated by the small suburb of Banksia Grove.
I also congratulate Marcia Dinnie, the president; the whole committee; and the members of the Wanneroo Senior Citizens Club for winning the community group award. More than 30 years of work has gone into the club for older Australians. Within the club, they offer lawn bowls. They also offer various art opportunities, including pottery. It is a great organisation, and the winning by the Wanneroo Senior Citizens Club of the community group award for the City of Wanneroo for Australia Day 2012 is much deserved.
I rise to pay homage to an Irish gentleman, Cyril Bell, whom I first met when I came to parliament 12 years ago. He has just retired as the cleaner in my electorate office in Melbourne. I want to tell you something of his great immigrant success story.
Cyril comes from County Tipperary. He married his wife, Carolyn, from nearby Kilkenny. Uncertain of the future in the land of their birth, they decided, like so many others of Ireland's youth have done from generation to generation, to join the Irish diaspora. Cyril and Carolyn have been married for 50 years, almost all of that time in Australia.
Cyril arrived in Port Melbourne on a Chandris liner, decked out in shorts and T-shirt, perhaps eager to get some of that well-publicised sun and surf. He found himself in the midst of the coldest winter in Melbourne in 50 years. Cyril got a job at the old Woolworths, a dream for a couple from Ireland. With the support of his employers in those days—'That was then,' he says—they found themselves with a house, which they still have, and an old Ford Falcon, which they do not. 'I thought I'd landed in heaven,' Cyril said, 'and I still do. No-one like us in Ireland in those days had a car.'
He developed a reputation for honesty, security and reliability, went into business and became a cleaner with many contracts in Melbourne in many parliamentary offices. I guess you would say he is my oldest, longest serving employee. Thank you, Cyril. Thank you, Carolyn, for supporting him all those years. May you enjoy a long and happy retirement together in good health and may you enjoy that trip you are planning back to Ireland in July— (Time expired)
The Whitsundays is an area with a shortage of GPs as it is right now, and we could lose yet another one, a long-serving and well-respected GP, Dr Paul Joice. And it is all thanks to Queensland Health.
Almost two weeks ago, Queensland Health banned Dr Joice, a local doctor with 33 years service to the community, from providing acute care and from delivering babies in their hospitals, particularly Proserpine Hospital. Why? The answers are very weak. Apparently, he has not seen enough patients in the past year. Maybe it is because he has been busy treating patients in the surgery. Somehow he has forgotten how to treat patients in hospital, and somehow he has forgotten how to deliver babies! What a crock. The real reason, I suspect, is that Dr Joice has been an outspoken critic of Queensland Health, and this is payback by the bullyboys who operate in the upper echelons of that organisation.
The Proserpine community is outraged. I have received letter after letter from residents who have had their babies delivered by Dr Joice, who have had loved ones treated by Dr Joice and who have had lives saved by Dr Joice. I think that heads should roll in this situation. I will be writing to the Queensland Minister for Health and shadow health minister and calling for an independent investigation into this disgraceful treatment of a doctor who should have been given a much better hearing by Queensland Health. They have really done this guy over, and heads should roll.
Today I would like to acknowledge a young athlete from my electorate, Jake Sulzberger. Jake is an inline hockey player who will be competing in the inline hockey junior world championships in South America in July this year.
Jake represented Tasmania at the 2011 national championships in Hobart. As a result of this performance, the 18-year-old goalie was selected as part of the Australian team for the Oceania Inline Hockey Championships in New Zealand in April. Jake was the only Tasmanian picked in the Australian junior men's team which will be contesting the world championships in Colombia. This is a great accomplishment, and it is fantastic to see a young Tasmanian athlete making a mark on the world stage in their chosen sport.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Jake on his achievements so far. Representing Australia and Tasmania at an international level is both a great responsibility and a great honour. I wish him great success in his endeavours this year and look forward to hearing how he and his team mates fare. Once again, congratulations and good luck to Jake Sulzberger, from my electorate of Bass.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer her to the comments of Mr John Hannagan, the Australian chair of the world's largest aluminium producer, Rusal, employing nearly 1,500 people in this country:
The carbon tax is based on the very flawed assumption that our competitors are going to have similar carbon or energy policies.
I ask: does she agree with Mr Hannagan? Won't the world's biggest carbon tax erode our international competitiveness, cost Australian jobs and ultimately close down the Australian aluminium industry?
I am aware of those comments and, as the Leader of the Opposition ought to be aware, our Jobs and Competitiveness Program is expected to provide over $3.5 billion of assistance to the aluminium and alumina industries over the next three years to support their competitiveness and to improve their efficiency. The Rusal comments also go to the fact that there are existing policies in China already imposing an effective carbon price, and that is before you take into account the fact that China is in the process of taking further action on climate change and to limit carbon pollution, including agreeing at the international conference in Durban to be part of a global emissions reduction regime which is to be developed for both developed and developing countries and would be agreed by 2015. China has also announced that in 2013 it will introduce pilot emissions trading schemes across major cities and regions covering over 200 million people and China aims to scale this up to a nationwide scheme.
What I would say to the Leader of the Opposition is that we know that the opposition has been out there for a long period of time now trying to sell fear about carbon pricing. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has taken one step back today from playing direct politics with announced job losses and is not maintaining his false assertions from yesterday. But the Leader of the Opposition is still in the fear business. What the Leader of the Opposition should be recognising—
Mr Speaker, won't her carbon tax ultimately close down the Australian aluminium industry?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has not finished answering the question. There are opportunities for the Leader of the Opposition to ask a supplementary question. He sought the call. I gave it to him on the basis that he was about to make a point of order. I now call the Leader of the Opposition on the basis that he is taking a point of order.
Yes, Mr Speaker, and I do thank you for your courtesy to me. On direct relevance, won't the carbon tax close down the Australian aluminium industry?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat, as will the Leader of the House. The Prime Minister has the call and she will be directly relevant to the question under consideration.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My answer to that direct question is that it is more of the fear that we have seen from the opposition. Let us go through the claims they have made to date. The first claim was that the coal industry would close down—proven to be absolute nonsense. Then the Leader of the Opposition was out saying Whyalla would be wiped off the map—absolute nonsense. Then he was out claiming that the government's statements that there would be benefits to nine out of 10 households was untrue. The only untruth in that was coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition when he tried to declare that those benefits would not be going through to pensioners and to working families. And now the Leader of the Opposition, against that track record of always getting it wrong, of always preferring fear over facts, is going back to the same well and inviting people to believe fear over facts again. The truth is that this is a tough time for the aluminium industry, as has been made clear by Alcoa. The pressures on them include the pressures of the Australian dollar. That is why we are working to support jobs today and will continue doing it tomorrow. The opposition, of course, have got absolutely no plans for jobs. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is returning to surplus vital to managing the economy in the interests of working people? What would be the consequences of not returning the budget to surplus?
Opposition members interjecting—
When honourable members return to order, I will give the Prime Minister the call, which she now has.
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. It is an important question because she is inviting me to explain why it is important to working people that we return the budget to surplus, why that is important to our economy and to jobs and growth.
Opposition members interjecting—
To the opposition, which obviously is yelling about all of this at the moment because they have got no economic plans so all they can do is scream abuse, maybe they might learn something if they listened. Why is it important to working people that we return the budget to surplus? First and foremost, events in Europe basically prove to us and prove to the world that there has never been a more important time to stick to your fiscal plans and to stick to fiscal discipline. That is a clear lesson out of Europe. Secondly, having strong public finances is important to our banks, it is important to underwriting and underpinning our banking system, and our banking system being there to provide loans and to enable investment means jobs. Thirdly, our economy is growing solidly, and when your economy is growing solidly it is the right thing to do to retreat the footprint of government and to allow the private sector to do more. Fourthly, a disciplined budget creates the space for the Reserve Bank should it choose to move on monetary policy, that is, should it choose to lower interest rates. That is why it is important for working people that the government return a surplus. The government has a clear determination to do so, and we will do so in 2012-13, as promised.
It is not easy to return to surplus. It means you have to work hard, contain spending and make savings. And we have worked hard to keep spending at 1.5 per cent in terms of—
I rise on a point of order. When was the last time the Labor Party actually delivered a budget surplus?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The honourable member for Longman will remove himself from the chamber, under the provisions of standing order 94(a), for that abuse of process of the standing orders with respect to points of order. The Prime Minister has the call and she will be heard in silence.
You have to contain spending, and we are doing that. You have to match spending with savings, and we are doing that. Compare that to where the opposition's—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! When the House has come to order the Prime Minister will be able to continue answering the question. The Prime Minister.
Compare that to the opposition's approach. They started with a commitment to surplus from the Leader of the Opposition. That has gone down to doing it 'as quickly as possible' from the leader. Then, 'as soon as possible' from the shadow Treasurer. Then it is an 'aim' from the deputy leader. Then it is a 'hope' from the Leader of the Opposition. Then it is an 'aspiration' from the Leader of the Opposition. Then it is 'let's wait and see' from the deputy leader. Then it is 'well, it just depends' from the shadow finance minister. Then it is 'we have to be measured' from the shadow Treasurer. Then it is 'we have to see the books' from the Manager of Opposition Business. Then, today, from Senator Abetz, an 'extravagant promise'. That is the sinking commitment to any form of surplus by the opposition. Unlike their shambles, we are very clear about a return to surplus and we will deliver it. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs advise the House of one single country—just one will do—with an economy-wide carbon tax greater than the Australian carbon tax, set at $23 per tonne and going up to $131 per tonne?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The honourable the Minister for Foreign Affairs will commence his answer once the House is silent. The minister has the call.
I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I did notice that once the question had been asked there was an interjection, by the Leader of the Opposition, I understand, mockingly saying 'Tuvalu, but it is sinking.' On the question of climate change, for the people of Tuvalu, the people of Kiribati, for the people in the climate change small island states, this is not a joke.
I rise on a point of order. On relevance, the Prime Minister is talking about Tuvalu. It does not have a carbon tax. I have asked him to name one single country—
Order! The deputy leader will resume her seat. The minister will resume his answer and will give an answer that is directly relevant.
I was simply reflecting upon the impact of that interjection on people who are facing the hard edge of climate change realities around the world: the disappearance of their countries. On the question posed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I make the following observations. I am advised that a number of countries have carbon prices higher than Australia's—a proposed price. For example, Norway's carbon tax on petrol is up to A$60; Switzerland's carbon tax on certain fossil fuels is around A$36; and in Canada the province of British Columbia has a carbon tax that will increase to around $28 per tonne in July 2012.
I find it remarkable that those opposite have difficulty confronting facts in response to a question. I can repeat those three if they wish, but I will go on. The United Kingdom has introduced a price—
Honourable members interjecting—
Minister, if you would hold for a moment. All honourable members have had the opportunity of participation in relation to the minister's response. Everyone will now remain silent so we can all listen to the words articulated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The minister has the call.
Thank you for your guidance and assistance, Mr Speaker. In this generally shared response, let me go on to the next point I was going to make, which is that the United Kingdom has introduced a price floor for the electricity generating sector to provide incentives for investment. Their target price floor is around $24 for the year 2013-14. Furthermore, I advise the House that we have previously seen the EU price sit above 20 euros for extended periods of time for most of the period between 2005 and 2008, and the price has rarely dropped between—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Honourable members on my left will remain completely silent for the duration of the minister's answer. Anyone who does not will join the honourable member for Longman.
The price has rarely dropped below 20 euros and at times it has gone above 30 euros. But I say to honourable members opposite that, given that they supposedly represent the party of business and markets, if they were to begin to look at the projections forward from market advisory services, for example, the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report of December last year, that report estimated that the EU carbon price is likely to be around 24.7 euros by the year 2015. I say to those opposite that if they are asking questions about carbon price, they in fact represent the realities of what is occurring around the world. It contrasts with a $48 billion plan, the so-called 'direct action plan', unfunded and uncosted, by those opposite. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, it has been pointed out to me that I referred to the foreign minister as the Prime Minister, and I would not want that Freudian slip to remain on the Hansard. It was during my point of order.
The deputy leader is testing my sense of humour. She has resumed her seat and I will give the call, when the House, including the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, is silent, to the honourable member for Fraser.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the importance of maintaining policies that support economic growth and jobs growth?
I thank the member from Canberra for that very important question, because we on this side of the House understand the importance of policies that promote growth and support jobs. The dignity of work and the opportunities that come from earning a decent living are absolutely fundamental to what we on this side of the House believe. We are not called the Australian Labor Party for nothing, because we believe in the dignity of work and we believe in the importance of supporting jobs, and that is why we acted so decisively during the global financial crisis and the global recession. And that is why we are proud of the fact that unemployment is at 5.2 per cent and that is why we are so engaged in working with those sectors of the economy that are impacted by a higher dollar, because we understand the importance of supporting employment and making sure that we have got modern industry which is both productive and competitive because we understand the importance of jobs to the security and wellbeing of our population. That is why we are so committed to delivering a surplus in 2012-13. We will deliver a surplus in 2012-13 because that is the appropriate thing to do when you have got an economy growing at trend. But that is not a belief which is shared by those opposite. We have got the three stooges of their economic team—
Order! The Treasurer would assist the chamber if he were to withdraw that reference.
Yes, I withdraw, Mr Speaker. We have got the Leader of the Opposition and we have got the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance spokesman, who have all abandoned their commitment to a surplus. Despite all of the time asserting that deficits produce higher interest rates and they are going to mean the end of the world, they have now abandoned their commitment to a surplus not just in 2012-13 but in the years that follow that as well, Mr Speaker. And what is one of the reasons why they have done that? Well, I can tell you one of them: so that they can give a big fat tax cut to Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer. That is one of their objectives. That is why their budget is completely out of control. We also know it is out of control because the shadow Treasurer has now confessed that he really did say there was a $70 billion crater in their budget bottom line.
Order! The Treasurer will return to be directly relevant to the question, which asked about economic growth and jobs growth.
Most certainly, because I am talking about the importance of a surplus, and there is the attitude of the member for Wentworth the other night on The 730 Report as there was a really wry smile when he was asked about the shadow Treasurer. We on this side of the House are committed to delivering a surplus to support jobs. We can do that to make sure that the people of this country are secure. Those opposite simply want to wreck our economy.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition's interjection directed towards yourself as Speaker was quite clearly disorderly. It is not up to any member of this chamber to cast aspersions on the Speaker.
I have been around in politics long enough to know that you have got to have broad shoulders and I think the leader knows he was skating pretty close to the mark. I am prepared to let it go.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Quicksilver Group, which employs 450 people in their Far North Queensland tourism business. Their annual fuel bill will increase by an estimated $250,000 a year under the government's carbon tax. Given the Prime Minister's own statement that Australia's tourism industry is already under pressure, why is the Prime Minister making a bad situation worse by imposing a job-destroying carbon tax?
The only job-destroying approach in this parliament is the one shown by the opposition, shown recklessly in relation to ripping out assistance from the car industry. The Leader of the Opposition has confirmed a half a billion dollar cutback and no more assistance after 2015. He has re-endorsed the Howard plan. He does not believe in jobs. That is job destroying. I am asked about job-destroying moves and, of course, there are so many more in this parliament—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister is making no attempt to be directly relevant to the question. It was about the tourism industry and jobs in North Queensland. It was not about any other industry.
The Prime Minister will be directly relevant. What she has said to date is relevant but she should be extremely careful to observe the terms of the question in giving her response. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On the circumstances of the Queensland tourism industry, it would be job destroying for that industry to not invest in skills, which is why the opposition's planned cutbacks are so reckless. It would be job destroying for that industry to not roll out the NBN, because people find their holiday packages now online. The opposition's plans to destroy the NBN are job destroying for the tourism industry.
The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The honourable member for Paterson ought not to address the chair until he is given the call at the dispatch box.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The shadow minister asked about the $250,000 impact because of the 6.2c a litre reduction in fuel. The Prime Minister does not even understand the impact of her own carbon tax.
The honourable member has sought to take a second point of order in relation to relevance. I will not at this stage invite the member for Paterson to join his colleague, but I would counsel and encourage him against similar action in the future.
When it comes to factors about jobs in the tourism industry, of course there is the impact of climate change on iconic features like the Great Barrier Reef. Nothing is more important to the tourism industry in Queensland than the work that comes because of the Great Barrier Reef. That is why it is so important to take action on climate change and, when you take that action, to do it in the cheapest way possible, which is what the government is determined to do.
Some days the opposition walk into this parliament and say: 'Do nothing. Don't worry about climate change.' It appears from the questions we are getting today that this is a 'do nothing' day. They do not believe in doing anything on climate change today. All of that, apparently, is job destroying. Then on other days they come into this parliament and say they have a plan. Well, let us look at the cost of that plan: $1,300 ripped out of the pockets of working families, tax cuts taken away, family payment increases taken away—
Order! The Prime Minister will ensure that her response is directly relevant.
When it comes to job destroying, what could be more job destroying for the tourism industry or other sections of the economy than taking that amount of money away from working families? We stand for getting ready for the future, which will be one in which we must create less carbon pollution. We stand for doing it in the most cost-effective way. We will be providing benefits and assistance to working families and pensioners as we do that and we will be working with industry around the country to support Australian jobs.
The job-destroying tactics in this parliament come from the opposition, pure and simple. They record it with their votes in this parliament, like when they voted against steelworker jobs. They record it in their public statements, like when they are looking forward to the end of the car industry. Every action they take is calculated at destroying jobs and 'feeding' the interests of working Australians. (Time expired)
Before I call the honourable member for Denison, who is the next questioner, I would like to recognise a former minister and long-serving member of this place, the Hon. Duncan Kerr, who is in the gallery. Another former minister and member of the other place, former Senator Patterson, is also in the gallery. On behalf of all honourable members I would like to extend a very warm welcome to these two former colleagues who are observing question time.
Honourable members: Hear, Hear!
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, Tasmanians are dying due to the shocking state of our public hospitals and both health professionals and the state government have called on Canberra for a takeover. Given a federal takeover of public hospitals nationally is inevitable and Tasmania is best placed to trial such reform, will you now commence negotiations with the Tasmanian government to do just that?
I want to thank the member for Denison for his very serious question. I also acknowledge the former member for Denison; it is great to see him here. Like the member for Denison, I was very disappointed to hear about the Tasmanian government's cut to elective surgery, which I think he is referring to here. I was particularly disappointed because the Commonwealth government will contribute $2½ billion to the Tasmanian health system over the next decade. It is a very significant investment, and I know that the member for Denison and the members for Braddon, Bass, Franklin and Lyons expected much more from the Tasmanian government than what they have got in recent times.
I can inform the House and those members who are interested that we will be requiring much closer oversight of the Tasmanian government's management of the health system in Tasmania. I think the saying might be 'we will be all over them like a rash' because this withdrawal of effort in elective surgery is very bad for the people of Tasmania. But we are not contemplating a Commonwealth takeover of the Tasmanian hospital system or indeed of the hospital system in any state or territory. What we will continue to do is make our investments, under close scrutiny, in areas like the Royal Hobart Hospital in the electorate of the member for Denison; the Mersey Community Hospital; and extra funding through the national partnership agreement to improve public hospitals in Tasmania, including extra funding into emergency departments, elective surgery, subacute beds, more radiation oncology services, more GP superclinics, better surgical services and so on. We are disappointed with the actions of the Tasmanian government. I know the member for Denison and my colleagues are concerned about those changes.
Do something about it then!
What I can say is that we will continue to be all over them like a rash. I hear the shadow minister interjecting. He is the guy who comes from the side that ripped a billion dollars out of public hospitals.
I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome the Hon. Barry Cohen, who is seated on the floor of the chamber. You will be pleased to know, Mr Cohen, that three of your former colleagues drew your august presence to my attention.
I would also like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the Pacific Parliamentary Leadership Dialogue. Members of parliament from Bougainville, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Vanuatu are participating in a leadership dialogue sponsored by the Centre for Democratic Institutions. My counterpart, the Speaker of the Parliament of Vanuatu, is part of that group.
Honourable members: Hear, Hear!
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister update the House on the government's investment in our nation's highways? How are the government's record infrastructure investments building the economy of the future?
I thank the member for Capricornia for her genuine interest, particularly in the Bruce Highway and the roads of Central Queensland. Indeed, her electorate has benefited from the doubling of the roads budget that has been undertaken by this government—up to some $28 billion—and, indeed, our much greater investment is delivering results. Andrew McKellar of the Australian Automobile Association backed it in, describing it as good news that there are now, in their report recently released, fewer high risk roads than five years ago.
The Bruce Highway has been a major beneficiary. We have invested in the Bruce Highway—and you do not have to believe those on this side of the House. This is what the member for Herbert had to say:
I will give Labor a pat on the back and say they have spent more in their four or five years on the Bruce Highway than we did before.
And he is right. More in four years than they did in 12, even though the Leader of the National Party was the Minister for Transport and Regional Services at the time: $1.2 billion over 12 years. You know the neglect, Mr Speaker, because you are one of the people who has made representations to me about this. If only they had a plan. They run around and speak about specific projects but they say sometimes that they have a plan. The member for Dawson said they had a plan. He has a website and it had on it 'Fix the Bruce'. It went up in June last year—the date is on the website: 28 June—and it said 'Coming soon'. Blank page—a blank page for their plan.
I clicked on again before question time. Guess what? It is still 'Coming soon'. Not a word, still coming soon, still blank, because they do not really have a plan. If you are going to have a responsible plan in infrastructure, you also have to have a plan to return the budget to surplus.
Order! The Leader of the House will return to the substance of the question.
Indeed, Mr Speaker. To have a plan to build roads you have to have a responsible fiscal position. You have to get the budget back to surplus. We have done it. The Leader of the 'Noalition' says no to a budget surplus. Senator Abetz in a doorstop this morning has called it an extravagant promise. More and more, when you ask them what they are going to do about infrastructure and roads they no longer make promises. These are now just aspirations. You cannot drive on an aspiration. You cannot catch a train on an aspiration and you cannot have a port that is just an aspiration. You need to have real plans, properly funded. We have it, you have not. (Time expired)
An opposition member: Kevin Rudd's got an aspiration.
I did not hear exactly which member made that statement but it was not helpful or conducive of an appropriate level of courtesy at question time.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to an article by a respected journalist, Tory Maguire, in the Punchon 27 January. She wrote:
Tony Hodges, who was the one trawling the Press Gallery yesterday afternoon trying to sheet home blame for the ugly scenes to the Opposition Leader ...
Who instructed Mr Hodges to carry out such a briefing? Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Mr Sam Casey, then of her media unit and present in the press gallery on the afternoon of Australia Day at the same time as Mr Hodges, did not similarly brief journalists?
I refer the House to the answer I gave to these sorts of questions yesterday. I said yesterday that to my knowledge no such briefing was given to the press gallery on the assertions and allegations made by the member who asked the question, I point out that Mr Hodges has left my employ because of what I thought was a grave error of judgment. If the member has very specific other allegations then she should put them.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order of direct relevance, I asked specifically about Mr Sam Casey—we know about Mr Hodges—and whether he was also briefing.
Mr Speaker—
Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat because I am listening to the point of order being put forward by the member for Mackellar who has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. To repeat it for your hearing, I asked specifically about Mr Sam Casey. We had an answer yesterday about Mr Hodges. I asked specifically: did Mr Sam Casey, of her then media unit, in fact also brief the media?
I get the gist of what the member is saying. She will resume her seat. On the point of order, I call the Leader of the House.
When those opposite rise, as they do for every single answer, about a point of relevance, they have to point out the standing order and the point of relevance. That should not be an opportunity to repeat the question or, what usually happens, which is to repeat a changed question.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. While it is helpful to the Chair if honourable members taking points of order cite the particular standing order, it is certainly not necessary for that to occur. I take the point of order raised by the member for Mackellar to refer to direct relevance and I ask the Prime Minister to continue her response bearing in mind the substance of the question.
My answer, as yesterday, is not to my knowledge.
My question is to the Minister for Health. What is the government doing to ensure that health funding delivers the best possible outcomes for Australians?
I thank the member for Hindmarsh for that question. For most Australians, nothing is more important than the health and wellbeing of our families. In the event of illness, people want access to the most appropriate care where they need it and when they need it. That is why, after inheriting a system that the Leader of the Opposition had cut by a billion dollars and inheriting shortages of doctors and shortages of nurses, we are training 1,000 extra nurses a year and 6,000 extra doctors over 10 years and we are putting new investments into cutting waiting times and cutting the length of emergency department waits as well. We are making sure that people can get GP care where they need it and when they need it.
We are able to make these investments by carefully considering where every dollar goes. That is why we are introducing the means test on private health insurance. This is a means test which will not affect 20 million Australians. It will affect no-one who earns under $83,000 a year—not a dollar lost if you earn less than $83,000 a year. As your pay increases the subsidy decreases, but you have to be, as a family, earning a quarter of a million dollars a year before you lose the subsidy entirely. These modest changes will save $2.4 billion over the next three years. That is a whole year's pay for 13,000 extra doctors or 26,500 extra nurses. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because we do not want a situation where the people who sit on this front bench or that front bench have their private health insurance subsidised by the people who clean this chamber at night.
As health minister, every day I hear about the needs in our health system. I hear about the diagnostic imaging which is needed in one community, I hear about the GP shortage in another community and I hear about the brilliant new medicines which are being discovered all the time by our medical researchers. I know that people on this side of the chamber want to fund those new investments. They want to see that better health care.
But to do that we need to spend every dollar well. Yes, we do want to do better on dental care. We have made huge improvements in dental care, with 1½ million checkups for teenagers, with 220 new dental chairs and with projects like the $2.1 million 10-chair teaching clinic at Adelaide Dental Hospital, which serves the constituents of Adelaide, including those in the member for Hindmarsh's electorate. He has been a huge advocate for better dental care. But to do those things, we need measures like the means testing of private health insurance. (Time expired)
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery on the floor of the chamber this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Cyprus led by His Excellency Mr Yiannakis Omirou, President of the House of Representatives. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the member for Dobell did not have any discussion about the investigation with either herself or her office?
Heavens above! It has really come to this—nothing to say about the economy, no commitment to a surplus. When the member walked to the dispatch box, I thought she might be asking a question about child care, which would have enabled me to inform the House that there is more childcare support for working families than ever before. But, no, of course the muckraking continues because this is an opposition with—
The Prime Minister will return to the substance of the question.
I will, Mr Speaker. But this is an opposition with no plans for the economy, no plans for working families, no plans for a surplus—and it is written all over their tactics.
The Prime Minister will become directly relevant.
On the question, I have made it perfectly clear that these matters are for the independent umpire, Fair Work Australia. I know the opposition has no regard for the independence of Fair Work Australia or the police—
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Prime Minister is not being directly relevant. The Prime Minister was not asked a question about Fair Work Australia; she was asked a question about the relationships and discussions that have taken place between herself and her office and the member for Dobell—a matter she can directly answer.
I invite the Prime Minister to address the substance of the question.
I say again that this matter is being investigated by Fair Work—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in complete silence and anyone who interrupts the Prime Minister during the answer to this important question will join the member for Longman—and that refers to people on both sides of the chamber.
The matter is being investigated by Fair Work Australia, an independent body. That is proper. It should reach its own conclusions in the way it best sees fit and the opposition should stop this campaign of trying to stand over the independent umpire, just as we saw them try to stand over the police last year.
Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer to that question. Given the serious matters under investigation and her stated desire to remove all perceptions of bias, will the Prime Minister publicly release all correspondence, emails and file notes or records of telephone conversations between her government, Fair Work Australia and the member for Dobell, and any other relevant documents?
I say to the opposition that they embarrassed themselves last year when they went too far making allegations about contact between my office and Fair Work Australia, with those allegations shown to be wholly untrue. They embarrassed themselves yesterday in question time—or perhaps it was the day before—by going back to matters which were dealt with in Senate estimates in October last year. I say to the opposition that it is time they stopped embarrassing themselves with this muckraking and actually got on to something relevant to working people.
My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister outline the importance for the economy and for families of the government investing in education? What community support exists for the government's investments?
I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. Families everywhere recognise how important education is. They focus on it because they know that if we are a well-educated nation we will be a successful nation. We will be a nation that is capable of meeting the challenges of the future. Our kids, as they go through school, will have the skills and the learning that will enable them to take up the jobs of the future. That is particularly important. Just as it is absolutely essential that our future prosperity is linked to having world-class schools, our future prosperity also rests very much on managing the national economy. Labor is committed to returning the budget to surplus and we are determined to deliver that, just as we have delivered record investment in education, whether it has been in facilities in schools or in providing computers for kids in years nine to 12 right around Australia.
I am asked what community support exists for the government's investments. It is widespread. In fact it is so widespread that when I looked at the site of the shadow finance minister, www.andrewrobb.com.au, I found that he was instructing his constituents to congratulate everyone who has approached either the coalition government or the Labor government over the last six years to secure this funding. The shadow minister for finance has very conveniently produced a list for his constituents on his website, and when I went to that list, I suddenly found all those investments that the Gillard government had made in education. Whether it was St Paul's Primary School, with the refurbishment of classrooms and corridors, whether it was Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College with the National Secondary School Computer Fund, whether it was Bentleigh West Primary School with the 2009 National School Pride Program sporting ground upgrade—how incredible that the very shadow finance minister who argued against this government taking the right steps to stimulate this economy in the global financial crisis is now producing a list on his own website commending this government for doing the very same thing. If you ever wanted a clearer indication of the opposition's confusion over economic policy and the commitment to education that exists in this parliament, the member for Goldstein's website shows it clearly.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the contact between her chief of staff, Ben Hubbard, and the then Commonwealth industrial registrar, Doug Williams, about the Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell, and the collusion between Fair Work Australia and the media advisor of the then minister for employment and workplace relations over media management of the investigation. On what basis can the Prime Minister claim there has been no interference by the government in the investigation into the member for Dobell?
To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I say that question is misleading people in this parliament. She is raising allegations against others that she must know are not sustained by the facts. I do not believe it is an appropriate standard for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to come into this place and use a question to make allegations which she must know are contrary to the facts.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
In relation to Ben Hubbard, which she has raised—and if she stops yelling and starts listening then she might hear the facts—these are the facts. They are on the record from 13 May 2010 and fully available to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition if she wants facts rather than muckraking. The facts on the public record are: the industrial registrar telephoned my chief of staff, Ben Hubbard—not the other way around, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition alleges.
Mr Abbott interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition is yelling, 'And then he rang back!' Heavens above, how pathetic!
Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister alleges that I said that Ben Hubbard called the industrial registrar. I did not. I referred to the contact between the chief of staff—
There is no point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat immediately.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
Order! If the member for Curtin was not the Deputy Leader of the Opposition she would have joined the member for Longman. I extend a little bit more benevolence to the senior members on both sides of the House. The Prime Minister was responding on how a certain contact occurred, and the Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The deputy leader's question was full of allegations and imputations. They are unworthy of her and unworthy of this place. The facts are on the record from 13 May last year showing the industrial registrar initiating contact and the nature of the contact. I invite people to look at the facts, not to listen to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question, which has been brought to this place to mislead people. I then invite them to look at the facts which are on the public record from 19 October 2011 regarding contact between a media advisor in Senator Evans's office and Fair Work Australia. The facts are there for all to see. It is apparent that the kind of terminology used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is uncalled for and unwarranted. This muckraking by the opposition brings it little credit and does it no good. Ultimately working families in this country want to know whether you stand for something: whether you stand for them, whether you stand for their interests, whether you stand for a strong economy, whether you worry about their jobs, and whether you worry about the government's finances. The opposition is incapable of doing that. They just want to shovel money at some of their rich mates and all of this is a cover-up of those intentions.
The Prime Minister will become directly relevant.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. I will listen to the supplementary question. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Prime Minister, if it is proven that your office made contact with Fair Work Australia over the Craig Thomson investigation, like Tony Hodges's involvement in the Australia Day riot, will you demand their immediate resignation?
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is very disorderly to allow questions which are completely hypothetical, which begin 'If it is proven'. That is hypothetical. The standing orders are there for that reason and it should be ruled out of order, particularly on the basis that it is still a supplementary question.
As the occupant of the chair, it is my role to determine whether a question is hypothetical in accordance with the standing orders. I invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to repeat her proposed supplementary question and I will consider it as a supplementary question. I would like the deputy leader to be heard in silence.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. If it is proven that the Prime Minister's office made contact with Fair Work Australia over the Craig Thomson investigation, like Tony Hodges's involvement in the Australia Day riot, will the Prime Minister demand their immediate resignation?
I will always take the appropriate action in relation to standards in my office. If the Leader of the Opposition was to take appropriate action in relation to standards in the opposition, the deputy leader would not have her position by the end of question time today.
When you are under pressure it comes out.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Dickson, I am sure, does not want to add to his list of ejections from the chamber. Now that the House is quiet I will invite the Prime Minister to withdraw that reflection on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker, I am happy to withdraw that reflection provided that all reflections on the government from the opposition are promptly withdrawn as well. Mr Speaker, what you are probably not able to hear from time to time—so this is not a reflection on you—is the nature of the reflections that come from the opposition. I invite you to do the best you can to listen to what comes forward and ask for withdrawals as promptly as well.
The Prime Minister is quite right insofar as there is often a lot of conversation across the table from the front benches, much of it inappropriate, and I want it to cease.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism. Can you update the House on recent investments in the resources sector and what it means for the Australian economy and, of course, for Australian jobs?
I thank the member for Hunter for the question because it enables me to address the underlying fundamental strength of the Australian economy. Over the summer period, key resource investments have again reinforced the fact that Australia is a world-leading destination for investment in the mining industry. ABARES estimates that at the moment we have planned and committed capital investment of a total of $455 billion. This is in essence about investment, which in turn creates jobs—something the coalition never wants to speak about. More importantly, most of this investment has occurred since the government's announcements of the MRRT and the refinement of the PRRT.
There has been a 34 per cent increase in committed and planned capital investment in Australia since April 2011 and a 74 per cent increase from October 2010. Perhaps more importantly, it is also very much focused on key commodity sectors such as oil and gas, iron ore and coal. Perhaps the most recent investment was announced yesterday by Rio Tinto of an additional $3.4 billion expansion of the iron ore sector in north-west Western Australia. Perhaps the most pleasing was the Ichthys announcement in Darwin, a $34 billion investment, which is going to be a game-changer for Northern Australia. This effectively represents one of the largest ever investments in Australia. It represents 3,000 additional construction jobs but, perhaps more importantly, it represents 700 long-term, highly-skilled, well-paying jobs in operations. It is estimated that it is going to add 20 per cent to the Northern Territory's gross state product. It is a very significant long-term economic opportunity for Australia. But already, yesterday we had a major announcement, for example, by Clough engineering of a $140 million contract for construction related to the Ichthys project, this added to an announcement last week of a further $350 million commitment for construction activities for Clough engineering relating to the $39 billion Wheatstone project.
I simply want to reinforce that our fundamentals are very strong from an economic perspective. This commitment represents in the LNG sector alone $175 billion. This is going to create major jobs in construction, big Australian content, and long-term well-paid jobs for construction workers. I simply say it is about time the coalition stop talking down the Australian economy because the record speaks for itself.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister reconcile her answer denying that her staff rang Fair Work Australia in relation to the Thomson investigation with this quote from Mr Doug Williams, the then Commonwealth Industrial Registrar, on 26 September 2011, referring to her staff, when he said, 'I recall receiving a phone call in early 2009 concerning inquiries that I had initiated into the Health Services Union'?
I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for getting right to the back of the archives and finding something that she has blown the dust off and bringing it into the parliament.
An opposition member: It was last year!
Yes, correct. It was last year. The matter was dealt with by Senate estimates in 2010, on 13 May. The answer provided is an accurate answer, and I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to it.
My question is to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development and Minister for the Status of Women. What is the government doing to support and strengthen the economic contribution of women in the workplace?
I thank the member for Petrie for her question. The greatest security all Australians can have is to be able to work in a strong economy. The Gillard government will continue the economic policies that have made our economy the envy of the world. The Gillard government are taking a determined and strategic approach to improve women's economic security over the course of their lives. We want to create the flexibility for more women to join the workforce and to work as long as they want. That is why we have introduced the first paid parental leave scheme in the history of this country. More than 130,000 Australian families have claimed paid parental leave since it was first started. That is why we have also increased the childcare rebate for out-of-pocket expenses from 30 to 50 per cent. That is why we are also committed to reforming the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act, and the agency, and improving women's participation on government boards.
Of course, there is no greater boost to working women's economic security than our removal of the coalition's Work Choices. We want to help women make the most of their working lives, and we are also making significant reforms to superannuation to help achieve that goal. It is of great concern to this government that, while women live longer than men, their superannuation balances are on average 40 per cent lower. We will increase the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. A 30-year-old woman earning around $70,000 will have an extra $108,000 in retirement savings thanks to this increase in superannuation. We will also deliver $830 million in tax concessions to low-income workers with salaries of up to $37,000. There are 3.6 million Australians on low incomes, and 2.1 million of them are working women, who will receive these tax concessions.
The Gillard government is delivering fairness for all Australians, including women, by returning the budget to surplus next financial year. But we know that the coalition are willing to sacrifice Australian families, women and some of the most vulnerable in our community to fund their $70 billion black hole. We know they want to cut back pensions, and 70 per cent of single age-pensioners are women. They want to cut child care—'the dead hand of government', the member for Mayo called it. They want higher taxes on superannuation for low-income working Australians, and 60 per cent of them are women. For them, a fairer Australia is not a priority but just another of their 'maybes', perhaps an aspiration. It is only Labor that will deliver improved economic security for women in the workplace.
Opposition members interjecting—
Clapping is disorderly.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her comment in 2007 on the establishment of Fair Work Australia: 'Labor will remove all perceptions of bias.' How can the Prime Minister credibly claim there are no perceptions of bias about the Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell, when the investigation has taken longer than Watergate, the Korean War, the building of the Sydney Olympic Stadium and the duration of the Rudd government and she clearly has refused to answer questions today on this matter in this House?
Now we are into absurdity upon absurdity. Of course, Fair Work Australia is independent. Of course, it therefore would be quite wrong for me to reflect on the conduct of Fair Work Australia, because those comments could be read as trying to get Fair Work Australia to do something and therefore seeking to impinge on its independence. So I will not do what the Manager of Opposition Business is inviting me to do, because to do so would be quite wrong, to do so would be to impinge on the independence of Fair Work Australia, to do so would actually be to do what the Manager of Opposition Business the rest of the time says that the government should not do.
You are in the depths of a logical absurdity, because your muckraking is so without content that you twist and you turn and you scratch and you claw to try and see if you can find another little bit of mud to throw. Well, I will tell you this about Fair Work Australia. It is independent. It is unbiased. It is the umpire we created because the Howard government, in the embrace of Work Choices, had gutted the industrial umpire. It is there to make sure we have an appropriate balance between the interests of employees and employers. And it is of no surprise to me that the very existence of Fair Work Australia offends those opposite, because they are still so in love with Work Choices that anything that treats working people fairly is an offence in their eyes. That is actually, at base, what most of this is about. They love trashing the industrial umpire because they think at some point they might politically profit from it, because they want the industrial umpire gone and they want Work Choices back. They want working people ripped off. That is what they have always stood for. That is what they will always stand for.
This government is determined to get things done. We are delivering. On that side of this House, they might huff and puff and deal with matters like this, but this government is determined to get things done and we will continue to do so, managing the economy in the interests of working people, providing the Fair Work system so employees get a decent go—
The Prime Minister will return to the question.
investing in skills so people have an opportunity in life, returning the budget to surplus because it is the right economic call. We know you are against all of those things. We will just keep getting on with the job.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the Prime Minister is called on by the House to make a statement immediately to reconcile her:
(1) statement that Fair Work Australia ‘will be independent of unions, business and government...Labor will remove all perceptions of bias’ with the fact that Fair Work Australia’s investigation of the Member for Dobell is now in its fourth year with seemingly no end in sight and may not even be released to the public; and
(2) assertions that there has been no political interference in the Fair Work Australia investigation of the Member for Dobell with the fact that her Chief of Staff contacted Fair Work Australia at the beginning of its investigation, one of the staff of the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations colluded with Fair Work Australia over the media management of statements to the press and she is unable to rule out that the Member for Dobell has been in communication with her or her office over the investigation.
There is a protection racket that surrounds the member for Dobell and we all know why: it is not to keep him in his job, it is to keep the Prime Minister in hers.
There is a smell about this government that reminds me of the smell at the back of a fridge full of old food and the smell is not going away, it is going bad and it is getting worse. It is a smell that is only going to get worse unless the Prime Minister ends the culture of cover-ups, half-truths and dirty tricks that characterises this government. The Prime Minister is damned in this matter by her own words about the Fair Work Australia investigation. Today she had a chance to reconcile them by supporting this suspension of standing orders and speaking to this motion, passing the motion and then debating in the House her previous statements about perceptions of bias and about no political interference. Instead the Prime Minister has left the chamber yet again. She has scurried out of the House to the Chief Government Whip's office to have a cup of tea and eat a Tim Tam to avoid answering questions that the public wants answered about this very grubby matter.
In the parliament today we had the very unfortunate experience of the Prime Minister being clearly on edge, being clearly rattled, being clearly incapable of telling the truth about the investigation by Fair Work Australia and about the member for Dobell. If she had told the truth she would have had to mislead the parliament and so instead she refused to answer the question. The Prime Minister has refused to answer question after question, from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, from the member for Farrer and from me as the Manager of Opposition Business in the House. And we know it is because if she answers them truthfully she will damn herself and she will damn her government.
In 2007 the Prime Minister said that Fair Work Australia must get rid of all perceptions of bias. The Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell is now in its fourth year. It has taken longer than the Watergate inquiry into President Nixon, longer than the Korean War took from start to finish, longer than it took to build Sydney's Olympic Stadium, longer than the Rudd government's duration, even longer than it took Pat Farmer to run from the North to the South Pole! If you want some examples of royal commissions that were wrapped up earlier than this inquiry into the member for Dobell, we have the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, the HIH Royal Commission, the Fitzgerald inquiry into Queensland police corruption and the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Even the royal commission into the Chamberlain case and, in the United States, the commission into the 9/11 bombings were completed in a shorter period of time than this investigation and we know why. It is because there is a protection racket that surrounds the member for Dobell and it is run out of the Prime Minister's office.
There is an old mafia saying, 'A fish starts to stink from the head.' If the Prime Minister wants to avoid the perception that this government stinks from the head she must act now. She must act to give confidence to the Australian people that her office is not run on the basis of half-truths, that it is not run on the basis of cover-ups and that it is not run on the basis of dirty tricks. Far from avoiding the perception of bias, there is now a very real concern amongst the Australian public and amongst the press and the political fraternity that there is a deliberate, institutional go-slow about this investigation. But don't just take the opposition's word for it; people who have been personally involved in this case and people who know how these cases run have got plenty to say about it.
Take Mr Doug Williams, the former Commonwealth Industrial Registrar. He said it was difficult to comprehend how a regulator could be seen to be properly regulating when such an inquiry was so protracted.
He is absolutely right. John Lloyd, the former head of the ABCC said:
You have to do things expeditiously. That is the basic good service you have to give when you are using taxpayers' money.
Finally Kathy Jackson, who is very much at the centre of this controversy—she had the courage others in the Labor Party and the Labor movement did not have, the courage to take these matters to Fair Work Australia and to New South Wales Police, and my how she is paying a price as the Labor movement closes around her and tries to shut her down, but she will not be shut down—said only recently:
Why has it taken so long? Why are we still waiting for answers? And why are we in this position? We need this to end.
She is absolutely right. But we all know why it cannot end: because, should it end, should an adverse finding be made against the member for Dobell, and should he face any charges, the Prime Minister's survival will be at risk, the Prime Minister will be the one who will be in trouble, her government will come to an end—and that is why this will never end.
The Prime Minister must also reconcile her continued assertions that there has been no political interference with the Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell with what we already know. In 2009 her chief of staff contacted the Commonwealth Industrial Registrar to inquire about the investigation they were doing into the Health Services Union. Quite properly, he was rebuffed at the time by the Commonwealth Industrial Registrar—and all of that comes from the record. But Fair Work Australia knew from that moment that they were on notice, that they were being watched by the Prime Minister. The red flag went up in Fair Work Australia—and that was the purpose of the call. The call was not to inquire about the investigation into the Health Services Union; it was to let Fair Work Australia know that the Prime Minister's office new about it and they were watching Fair Work Australia.
And the warning shot that was fired across the bow of Fair Work Australia had its effect. What happened? An institutional go-slow happened. That is what happened. Almost four years later we are still waiting for the completion of that investigation. The Prime Minister's office's phone call had the desired effect: it stopped the investigation dead in its tracks. It did not matter what the conversation was about; the point was that the Prime Minister's office wanted Fair Work Australia to know, 'We are watching'. That is why there is a smell that hangs over this government like bad food getting worse, and it will continue to hang over this government and be a stench until the matter is dealt with.
We also know there was collusion between the then minister's office and Fair Work Australia about massaging the media. The phrase was used: 'Awesome, that should ensure it doesn't get any run in the morning'. That was a clear indication again, from the government, that they were pleased with Fair Work Australia's work, they were pleased that Fair Work Australia were running it the way they were—they ticked off the media statement; they were colluding with Fair Work Australia to ensure this matter went away.
If it is not bad enough that the Fair Work Australia investigation is perceived to be in institutional go-slow, to sandbag the government in power, it is even worse that claims of political interference hang over the investigation and taint the government. But the worst aspect of this is that the interests of 170,000 workers in the Health Services Union, who are members who pay their dues, are not even being considered. These are amongst the poorest workers in the workforce—170,000 Australians want answers to what happened to their money when the member for Dobell headed up their union. Those 170,000 people deserve answers to how their money was spent when the member for Dobell headed up the Health Services Union.
And there are members on that side of the House who I know agree with me. There are good Labor members from old union backgrounds, like the minister for resources, who must cringe at having to defend the member for Dobell in this place and having him as part of his government—and worse, having to rely on the member for Dobell to stay in government, because without his vote the government will fall. That is what this is all about: protecting the member for Dobell in order to protect the Prime Minister.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.
The reason this House needs to suspend standing orders and debate this matter is that it is of monumental national interest. The gossamer thread that holds this government in office is provided courtesy of the member for Dobell. Without his vote the government could fall, Australia would be heading for the polls—and what a relief that would be. So it is massively important in terms of the government of this country that the Prime Minister be called to account over the legitimacy of the member for Dobell remaining in this House. And her implausible explanations of her government's involvement in this investigation must mean that she comes into this House and explains.
The Prime Minister has a credibility problem. We know that courtesy of her colleague the member for Lyons. He said she has a credibility problem, and my God she does. Her string of broken promises, her shredding of written commitments, her repeated betrayals—her words mean so little that no-one believes her. When I was in question time, when she was standing up there saying that her staff did not ring the registrar when her staff did ring the registrar, I was reminded of Richard Nixon—'I am not a crook'! I accept that the comparison is unfair to Richard Nixon. Her answers in question time just add to her credibility problem. When she accused me of misleading people by suggesting there had been contact between her chief of staff, Mr Hubbard, and the registrar, Mr Williams, she said I was misleading people. In fact, she could not reconcile the words of the industrial registrar that he received a call from her office. The Prime Minister must explain that lapse to this House.
There is a foul odour around the Prime Minister's office, from her media unit in particular, over its grubby act of inciting a racial riot on Australia Day—one of the lowest acts of a Prime Minister's office in living memory. And it is rivalled by the collusion from another government minister's media unit into the Fair Work Australia investigation into the allegations surrounding the member for Dobell. I note that the member for Dobell denies the allegations. I also note that he is yet to give the full explanation to the House that he promised he would give months ago of allegations that relate to the misuse of at least $100,000 of union funds for the procurement of prostitutes—never specifically denied. This is $100,000 of funds of lowly-paid workers of the Health Services Union. After the member for Dobell parted from his job at the Health Services Union, the allegations were referred to Fair Work Australia in 2009—over three years ago. And yes, the hierarchy of Fair Work Australia has some explaining to do, and no doubt Justice Giudice will do that. I remind members that Fair Work was set up under legislation personally drafted by the Prime Minister as the responsible minister at the time, legislation that requires Fair Work Australia to act in a manner that is fair and just, quick and informal, avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent. Just what is quick, open or transparent about this investigation and the government's role needs to be explained.
Members will be interested in this web of intrigue. This chart shows the Labor Health Services Union family tree. We have the Prime Minister. We have Tim Lee. We have Craig Thomson. We have the connections between Labor, the Health Services Union and Fair Work Australia. With apologies to Sir Walter Scott, Albo, Labor's mission statement is:
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
That is the Labor Party.
This House must be concerned about the part the Prime Minister's office played in the delay of this investigation. We know that the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister, Ben Hubbard, had contact with the registrar. We know from the words of the registrar. The Prime Minister must come clean. Once upon a time, back when she was in opposition, she would set standards for the government. I recall her words in 2004: 'There is an obligation of honesty and probity in public life that makes the minister responsible for the conduct of their staff.' This Prime Minister can live up to the standard that she set for others by revealing all contact of any nature between any member of the government or any staff in relation to the scope of this investigation and the time it has taken. (Time expired)
This is the 37th failed suspension from the opposition in the 43rd Parliament. Of those, 22 have been to suspend standing orders to allow a motion critical of the Prime Minister to be moved. Up until this week, 20 out of 20 of them had been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. But today, just like earlier this week, this is based on such a flimsy approach that he has not had the ticker to move it himself. He has had the Manager of Opposition Business stand up and do it for him. And then they have the gall to say, 'Where's the Prime Minister?'
The Prime Minister has been in here this week answering question after question about the economy, because that is what we are interested in on this side of the House. But it is no wonder that again today, after a couple of questions up the front to talk about the economy, the opposition went straight in the gutter, straight in the dirt, because today their plan in terms of surplus is in shreds. Today, indeed, they have the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow finance minister, the shadow Treasurer and Senator Abetz, the leader over in the Senate, all saying different things. Senator Abetz now calls surplus 'an extravagant promise'. They have a Leader of the Opposition whose policy is down to 'aspirations'.
They are happy to ask question after question. I will tell you what. I would like an answer to this. Maybe someone will ask them whether the office of this Leader of the Opposition has ever told anyone in the media the whereabouts of the Prime Minister. I would be very interested in the conduct of the office of this Leader of the Opposition, because if it is good enough to go down these roads then we will go down these roads. This Prime Minister showed the standards that she had and that she expected of her office when she took action against Mr Hodges. So I look forward to an answer about that—just like we know they have the hide to come in here and ask about contact with regard to the investigation into the member for Dobell. We all know—have they forgotten?—what they were doing at the end of last year, ringing people in the police, ringing New South Wales ministers and interfering in investigations directly. The shadow Attorney-General was ringing New South Wales officials in a completely inappropriate manner—and they have the hide!
We would be really interested in the contact they have had with Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart about giving them a tax break. We would be very interested in that, because we know that the LNP fly around in Mr Palmer's jet during election campaigns. We know about the record amounts of donations that go in there. We would be very interested in all of those questions.
They will do anything but debate the economy and jobs. At the beginning of this year—after last year, when the Leader of the Opposition was parodied as the walking vuvuzela, the bloke who stands for nothing, who just makes one noise, who has turned the coalition of yesterday into the 'noalition' of today—I think we could have expected that there would be some change in strategy when we came into the first week of the parliament this year, but we have had nothing but the same old muckraking over old issues. We have had nothing but the same old personal attacks against the government and, in particular, the personal attacks against the Prime Minister. We have had nothing but the same old negative approach of all those opposite.
You get a few interjections. There has been a bit of an issue, Mr Speaker—you might have noticed—about American presidents. Certainly I am now aware of the movie, but I have also been aware for a longer period of time about American presidential campaigns. I have been an observer of them. I note that it is not unusual, as you look at the Republican contest that is going on here, a fight between the extreme Right, the very extreme Right and the completely-off-the-planet Right. There is precedent for that. There is precedent for these conservative campaigns.
Barry Goldwater was an extreme right-wing candidate in 1964. He went around and appealed to fear. He ran a campaign trying to divide the great nation that is the United States of America. He did that under a slogan, trying to appeal to all the worst elements. He never appealed to the better that mankind is capable of. His slogan said: 'In your heart you know he's right.' That was the slogan when appealing to that sort of prejudice, just as the current Leader of the Opposition tries to do, pressing every button that he can on every single issue. The Democrats very successfully parodied the Goldwater campaign, and it is something that I think fits with this Leader of the Opposition. Their response was: 'In your guts you know he's nuts.'
That is exactly what this Leader of the Opposition shows himself to be in the way that he conducts himself in public life. He has indeed done for public discourse in this country what the vuvuzela did for World Cup soccer in South Africa. He runs around, he says no to everything, he tries to divide the community, he tries to scare people, he has nothing positive to say whatsoever. You would have thought that they had three months after we finished in November, right through December, right through January, through February, to come up with an alternative plan. Anything will do, anything at all—an alternative plan on the economy, on trade, on infrastructure, on health, on education. But what they have is a blank sheet, the blank sheet that we saw with the Fix the Bruce plan. That would apply to every one of their policies. Their fix the health system plan is the same—a blank page. Their plan to fix the education system is the same—a blank page.
The Leader of the House ought not to depart too far from the substance of the motion to suspend standing orders.
Indeed, Mr Speaker. The reason why the suspension should not be allowed is because we want to debate issues of substance. What they are doing in moving this motion today is knocking off their own MPI again because they are not interested in debating any real policy issues.
Go on, knock it off. It is on the economy.
Then he has the hide to say we do not want to talk about the economy. I have got news for the shadow Treasurer: the debate finishes at 4.30 when we go to adjournment. They are not aware of that; they are not too good on standing orders. Old or new, any of them, they do not seem to get it. They come in here and they just have one policy. I will say this: on this side of the House we are the builders, we are the nation builders; they are the wreckers. We are the people who are interested in enhancing opportunity; those opposite are only interested in entrenching privilege, entrenching privilege of the big end of town. That is who they represent. The Leader of the Opposition runs around and says he is the friend of the workers but he is trying to smash the auto industry, he is not prepared to support the steel industry, he is not prepared to support the changes to the economy that we need as we move to a carbon constrained future that will ensure that we continue to be the envy of the industrialised world. Those opposite have a $70 billion black hole. Those opposite cannot talk about anything positive because they do not have any money: they are at minus $70 billion before they start. And that is before you take into account all the other commitments that they have made. The fact is that it is only this side of the House that has a plan to govern. We are getting on with the job of governing. Those opposite just have hissy fits, complaints, negativism and no plan for jobs, no plan for the economy, no plan for social policy, no plan for infrastructure, no plan for the nation. The Australian nation is better than that and it is a lot better than those opposite, which is why we remain on this side of the chamber and why in the lead-up to 2013 we will still be on this side of the chamber, and after the next election, because you stand for nothing. (Time expired)
The question before the chair is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to—that is, the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders.
In division—
While the tally is taking place, I have noticed, progressively, with motions to suspend standing and sessional orders speakers on both sides have tended to address the issue rather than the reason for a suspension. I would like to give the House notice that hereafter I intend to strictly enforce the standing orders. So, if there is a motion to suspend, the speaker supporting that will support that motion and the speaker opposing it will oppose that motion.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
This morning the Advertiser published an article titled 'Cigarette packaging defended'. The last paragraph of that article implies that I have been speculating about compensation that will be payable. I have never done that and have not made those comments. It is inaccurate.
():
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I have received advice from the Nationals chief whip requesting that he be discharged from the Selection Committee, from the 17 February 2012, and nominating Mr Neville to be a member in his place.
by leave—I move:
That, from 17 February 2012, Mr Coulton be discharged from the Selection Committee and that, in his place, Mr Neville be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2011-12 entitled Audit report No. 25, Performance audit:administration of Project Wickenby, and Audit report No. 26, Performance audit: capacity development for Indigenous service delivery.
Ordered that the reports be made a parliamentary papers.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Parliamentary Joint Committee—Inquiry into the operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006—
Interim report—Government response.
Final report—Government response.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Human rights in the Asia-Pacific: Challenges and Opportunities—Government response.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—Report 110: Treaties tabled on 18, 25 (2) and 26 November 2009 and 2 (2) February2010—Government response
Debate adjourned.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable Chief Government Whip claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, unusually, Mr Speaker.
Please proceed.
Throughout the course of this week a number of online publications have run stories—I think this is only online; I have not seen any print versions—suggesting that I plan to co-sponsor a private member's bill promoting civil unions. I will be co-sponsoring no such bill. I never ever had any plans to co-sponsor any such bill.
I have received letters from the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Fraser proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for North Sydney, namely:
The failure of the Government to ease financial pressures on Australian families.
I therefore call upon those honourable 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—
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you for choosing my suggestion. The Prime Minister has declared that this year there will be a debate on the economy. Despite her best endeavours to close question time on Tuesday and to curtail debate yesterday, we want to have a debate on jobs and the economy. The job I want to talk about is not her job, even though that seems to be the preoccupation of most of the parliamentary Labor Party members and many others. I want to talk about the jobs of everyday Australians. Labor has not delivered on jobs. The Treasurer promised on budget night last year that his budget was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. In fact, he claimed in the budget papers that the budget itself would help to create 500,000 jobs in the following 12 months. He also claimed, by the way, in the budget that he would have a $22 billion deficit. Of course, neither has eventuated. In fact, as he admitted to Fran Kelly on Radio National just a few days ago, on 30 January:
KELLY:
In terms of the positives though, the Government positively forecast half a million new jobs over the next few years to be created. Given the zero jobs growth last year, are you still confident that that figure holds, that it can be achieved?
TREASURER:
Well, certainly we will do less than that ...
Of course they will do less than that. For the first time in 20 years, last year there was no jobs growth in Australia. In fact the jobs news is likely to get worse, given the Roy Morgan employment index and, obviously, the reported news about job losses. Since the beginning of January more than 2,000 job cuts have been announced. At this point I remind the minister at the table, the Minister for Trade, of the comments by the Prime Minister in relation to job losses. This is a very important set of words from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said to the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce:
These are powerful, economy-wide transformations, perhaps best thought of as 'growing pains'.
Just as the Labor Party said when Prime Minister Howard alluded to the fact that families 'have never had it so good', so too will this Prime Minister regret job losses at every stage being defined simply as her own words: growing pains. Is it growing pains for Westpac, who announced 400 job losses just a few days ago, for the Royal Bank of Scotland, with 200 job losses, and for ANZ, with 1,000 job losses within the next six months? These are the Prime Minister's 'growing pains'. Holden will lose 100 jobs, Toyota will lose 350 jobs—but that is just growing pains. BHP will lose 155, Reckitt Benckiser 190, Manildra 70, Norsk Hydro 150, Tomago Aluminium 100, Thales 50, Don Smallgoods 31 and Macquarie Group 1,000 around the world. This is just 'growing pains' according to our Prime Minister.
But growing pains were never meant to hurt this much, and that is the problem. No matter how high the challenge of the increasing cost of living, everyday Australians cannot meet it at all without a job. And the only job this Prime Minister is concerned about is her own, because we know that when she announces job programs they do not work. There is no better example than the Jobs Fund Infrastructure Employment Projects Program. It was set up more than 12 months ago—$150 million and not one job. When asked a simple question today by the Leader of the Opposition about aluminium jobs, what was the Prime Minister's response? 'Well, we've got a $3½ billion fund.' The bottom line is that the only way to create jobs is to have prosperity. The only way to create jobs is to have a growing economy. The only way to create jobs is to give employers an incentive to make money and therefore to spend money to continue to grow. That is the only way you create jobs. We did it; we know. After we left government in 2007, in February 2008—just a few months later, the lag indicator of unemployment—unemployment was just four per cent. That was on top of a budget surplus. That was on top of money in the bank. We left them with the most robust employment indicator Australia had seen in 30 years, yet somehow they are taking pride today in an unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent with a falling participation rate.
The government see that as a great moment of signature achievement. They keep comparing us to Spain or Greece or Italy or a range of other countries—perhaps Ireland would get a mention—all countries where the unemployment rate is well into the double digits, instead of comparing us to the fastest players out there. We are a nation of aspirational people. We want to aspire to be the best. So when we talk about the Asian Century let us compare ourselves to those economies. Do not compare us to Europe and the United States in order to make us look good, because they are no longer our competition. The Asian Century is real. Therefore, we must compare ourselves with the fastest runner in the field because we are a nation that wants to win. We have always wanted to win. Whether it be in sport, the arts or anything else, we want to be the best in the world, and I would encourage the government to start addressing the fact that we have to compare ourselves to the best.
When it comes to the cost of living, the Labor Party must be held to account. Over the four years of Labor, headline inflation has averaged 2.9 per cent. Under the coalition it averaged 2.4 per cent. More telling has been the cost of essential services under Labor. In just four years electricity has gone up 60 per cent, gas has gone up 36 per cent, water and sewerage have gone up 58 per cent. They are the things that people have to buy every day. It is not discretionary spending. It is not a TV or even a second computer at home. These are the things people have to spend money on every day. Health care has gone up 19.5 per cent, education has gone up 23.8 per cent, insurance has gone up 31.6 per cent and basic foods like lamb have gone up 26.2 per cent. Fruit has gone up 39 per cent and of course rent, the one that many Australians cannot avoid, has gone up 24.6 per cent.
What is Labor doing to address that? They are introducing a carbon tax, and the carbon tax is going to increase the cost of everything. It is going to increase the cost of electricity, gas, water, health care and education. It is going to increase the cost of insurance. It will increase the cost of lamb and fruit, and it will increase the cost of rent because it is a tax on the way we live. It is a tax on energy, and as a nation we need energy to propel ourselves forward. The carbon tax is a tax on everything.
Why were many Australians disappointed that the Reserve Bank did not cut interest rates this year? I would say that was because what they are actually paying under Labor is higher than what they paid under us. Let us be very clear: this is a government that keeps using selective data as its basic input. The truth is, under the coalition the standard variable mortgage rate—the one that people actually pay—was 7.26 per cent on average; under Labor, 7.51 per cent on average, and even then that is after the cash rate of the Reserve Bank went down to three per cent, that is even when the economy had a negative quarter. Out of all of that, what people actually pay out of their pocket for a home mortgage is higher under Labor.
What is more dramatic than the typical home loan of $294,800 being $700 a year cheaper under us than it is under Labor? The big one is small business. For small business, the average rate under Labor is 10.23 per cent for an average small business unsecured overdraft. Under us it was 8.89 per cent. For a $200,000 overdraft the difference for a small business is $2,680 a year. It is a huge amount of money when they are thinking about increasing the work commitments of existing staff or employing another person part time.
For all the huff and puff of the Treasurer against the banks, on more than 50 occasions he has warned the banks to pass through the RBA cash rate change and he has been ignored on 50 occasions. In fact, I lie, because it was 51 occasions. I keep forgetting the last interest rate cut when his old mate at the National Australia Bank did not even pass it on in full. So over the four years of Labor, the spread between the Reserve Bank cash rate and the home mortgage and business borrowing rates has averaged 2.73 per cent, almost one per cent more than under the coalition.
Then we come to the deficit of debt. Let me be very clear: the coalition went to the 2010 election promising a surplus in 2012-13 and we did so based on the Treasury data that was released during the course of the election campaign. It is known as the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. All the other data that comes out of the government during the course of a parliamentary term is in fact the figures that belong to the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer—they are their figures. The only time you have a release of raw Treasury data, which is the starting gun for every debate about surpluses over the course of an election campaign, is during an election campaign itself with the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
When we had those numbers we quite rightly forecast that we would have had a surplus in 2012-13. We are as committed as ever to fiscal prudence. We are as committed as ever to smaller government. We are as committed as ever to giving Australians more control of their own money. But we cannot believe the Labor Party's own budget today, which was meant to be at first a $12 billion deficit, and then a $22 billion deficit, and after just six months it turned into a $37 billion deficit. If they manage to have a $15 billion blow-out in just six months when you have about trend growth, when you have the best terms of trade in 100 years, they are now asking us to believe that they are going to have the biggest fiscal consolidation in Australia in 60 years in just 12 months.
They talk about a $70 billion costing hole—that is over four years. The Labor Party says it is going to do half of that in 12 months. They are miracle workers! If the miracle is to be performed then let us all have a look. Now we have the government saying, 'We will deliver a surplus next year.' The Prime Minister says, 'We will deliver a surplus.' The problem is that we will not know until September 2013 and I am prepared, as a betting man, to put a little bit aside. I suggest that the current Prime Minister is not going to be in that job in 2013.
Are you giving odds?
Give me odds, come on, give me odds. I will take the odds. The Labor member wants to give me odds and I am sure he can give me better odds than anyone else. Do you know why? If the Labor Party has a $15 billion blow-out in the budget deficit in just six months, how can they possibly be trusted to deliver a surplus in September 2013, let alone demanding that we commit to it. They cannot commit to it and they are in government. They are the ones with thousands of public servants and they cannot commit to it.
The problem the Labor Party has, as the member for Lyne said, goes to credibility. People no longer trust them at their word. They no longer trust the Labor Party at what it says. When they say they will not have a carbon tax, they have a carbon tax. When they say they will do something about poker machines, they do not do anything on poker machines. When the Prime Minister gave a commitment to the Greens about dental care, she then goes and breaks her word. She has broken her written word to the member for Denison. She has broken her spoken word to the Australian people. She has broken her solemn word to the member for Griffith about loyalty as Deputy Prime Minister. If you cannot trust them with their own words you cannot trust them with the economy. (Time expired)
Earlier in the week, when the Prime Minister said that this year parliamentary time would be devoted to debating the economy, the Leader of the Opposition channelled Dirty HarryClint Eastwood—and said, 'Make my day'. They have been running away from an economic debate during question time ever since. They have brought out case after case of what they consider to be issues of interest to the people of Australia and they are nothing but fear and smear.
They are nothing but fear and smear because the coalition is terrified of a proper debate about the Australian economy, including about budget surpluses. We know why because this week the coalition was in a fog of confusion about their commitment to bring the budget back to surplus. We heard from the shadow Treasurer just now that when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement before the last election about bringing the budget back to surplus, he did not have the benefit of the numbers at that time. What the opposition leader said was, 'We will bring the country back into surplus in 2012-13.' There was no qualification. He did not say, 'We will try; it depends on the state of the books.' It was unqualified that the coalition would bring the budget back to surplus in 2012-13.
This week, however, out of this fog of confusion, it has become clear, as the fog lifts, that the coalition has no intention of ever in the foreseeable future bringing the budget back to surplus—let alone if they were given the opportunity to do so in 2012-13. They have walked away from that promise and now blame the official budget figures for doing so. The fog started earlier this week on Monday, when the shadow finance minister was asked about bringing the budget back to surplus and he replied, 'Well, it just depends.' This was the first qualification. Then the shadow Treasurer, thinking that he still had the backing of the Leader of the Opposition, very bravely said, 'As we have said, we would get to surplus next year; we would get to surplus in 2012-13.'
So the shadow Treasurer repudiated the shadow finance minister—that was on Tuesday. But, on the same day, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House said: 'When we get back to power, we will be in a better position to say when our first surplus will be delivered.' So he is walking away from the commitment by the shadow Treasurer and siding with the shadow finance minister. But there is more! On the same day, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, 'Well, let's see what the real figures are.' So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition joins the shadow finance minister and the Manager of Opposition Business in this chamber in saying, 'Let's see what happens; it all depends.'
The shadow Treasurer would have been thinking, 'Well, I will get the backing of my leader, because it was my leader who said, before the last election in an unqualified way, that we would bring the budget back to surplus.' But, no, the opposition leader came out just yesterday and said, 'We will get back to surplus as quickly as possible.' He absolutely left the shadow Treasurer stranded in that fog of confusion.
The reason they cannot get back to surplus is simple: they have a $70 billion funding hole. We heard the coalition just now, through the shadow Treasurer, saying, 'Oh, it is Labor which is talking about a $70 billion funding hole.' But, on 12 August last year, the shadow Treasurer said, 'Therefore, finding $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion is about identifying waste and blah, blah, blah.' He referred to the number, the $70 billion. The shadow finance minister backed him up on that occasion. He did not desert the shadow Treasurer. He said, 'The $70 billion is an estimate of the sort of challenge that we will have.' Out of the mouths of the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister come these words: '$70 billion'.
Then the Leader of the Opposition, worried because the cat was out of the bag, said, 'Well, this $70 billion is a fanciful figure; it has been plucked from the air by government ministers and I am surprised you are retelling it to me.' He said that on 25 August. The shadow finance minister was then on the spot as a result of the opposition leader saying, 'This is a myth; it is a Labor creation.' The shadow finance minister was asked, 'Is it a furphy?' and he said, 'No, it is not a furphy; we came out with that figure.' So there it is—the $70 billion funding hole reaffirmed by the shadow finance minister. The shadow Treasurer was then asked, 'You are happy to recommit to that idea of $70 billion in savings?' and the shadow Treasurer replied, 'It is not a figure that I use.' The words came out of his own mouth, but then he tried to walk away from them.
On Friday night on Lateline, the Manager of Opposition Business in this chamber, crying like a baby against alleged bias in the interview—the problem was that he absolutely botched it—talked about how the coalition having $70 billion worth of spending cuts was Labor Party spin. It came from the shadow Treasurer and from the shadow finance minister and he says it is Labor Party spin! Then, on Q&A on Monday this week, the shadow Treasurer said: 'There is no $70 billion hole. I have never said it and I am not saying it now. It is just a myth, a Labor creation and a figment of people's imagination.' Then he was put under pressure, because you cannot scurry away on Q&A, and he said, 'Okay, I should not have said any figure.' He had to admit that he had said there was a $70 billion funding hole, because the tape was there, the transcripts were there and the records were there. He was joined by the shadow finance minister in saying they have a $70 billion funding hole.
That takes us to this problem. This is why they cannot get back to surplus—they have this huge set of unfunded commitments. When you have that, you either slash services—we heard from the member for Mayo what they would be: age pension, childcare services and all of the social spending which is vital to the social fabric and to supporting the disadvantaged in this community; the member for Mayo said that they are the areas which should be targeted—or you do not return to surplus. We know that they will do one or the other and, from the debacle this week, it is clear they are not going to return to surplus if they are elected to government. They have basically said that. They have said it as clearly as you could possibly expect them to. Indeed, Senator Abetz, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, said that it was 'an extravagant promise'. That is what he said today. The whole idea of a return to surplus is an extravagant promise.
That is what the agenda is—they have no intention of returning to surplus. In this fog of confusion, when the shadow Treasurer earlier in the week was asked, 'Will you return to surplus?' he channelled President Obama and said, 'Yes, we can.' But then the opposition leader came out and said, 'No, we cannot.' The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate then said, 'Anyway, it was an extravagant promise.'
What we have seen this week is smear and fear from the coalition—because they do not want us to make their day and have a proper debate about the economy. As soon as we engage on the economy, they revert to fear and smear. But we have seen, in this chamber and this parliament, a triumph of policy over fear and of substance over smear. That has been the performance of the Labor side, the government led by the Prime Minister. We will take on the great economic debates. This is important to the country's future.
Day after day those opposite come into question time trying to smear the government and create fear in the Australian community. The truth is that interest rates are going down because this government has created the capacity for the Reserve Bank to cut the cash rate. Do not ever rely on the coalition to make judgments about the state of the economy and the state of economic management—look at the ratings agencies whose job it is to do that. For the first time in Australia's history, all three ratings agencies give Australia a AAA rating. That was never achieved under the coalition; never achieved under the Howard government. When they come in here and finally engage in an economics debate, at a quarter past four on a Thursday afternoon, by trying to trash talk the economy and talk it down, we should look to the independent assessors, the three ratings agencies who rate us AAA. Our giving the Reserve Bank the capacity to reduce interest rates is the very reason we will bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13 and it is for that very reason that the coalition is running away from that—they know they cannot do it.
The shadow Treasurer just came into the chamber and said that interest rates are higher now than they were under the coalition. It is unbelievable how they can come in here and say interest rates are higher than they were under the coalition. The Reserve Bank cash rate is now 4¼ per cent. It was 6¾ per cent under the coalition. And 4¼ per cent is less than 6¾ per cent. Then they say no, they meant the average variable rate—7.3 per cent now, 8.6 per cent under the coalition. So they cannot come in here and seek to mislead parliament by saying interest rates are higher under Labor. I remember very well the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, saying during the 2004 election campaign that interest rates will always be lower under the coalition than under Labor, and that they would keep interest rates at record lows. What happened? There were 10 interest rate rises in a row. They want to air brush that out of history. They come in here and say that that never happened, interest rates did not rise under the coalition and they were lower under the coalition than under Labor. That is completely untrue.
I was heartened by one statement that the shadow Treasurer made during his presentation. He said we are now living in the Asian century. Wow, that is a revelation! Labor governments have been preparing for the Asian century since the mid-1980s when Bob Hawke undertook vital economic reforms, with the support of Treasurer Keating, to engage with the Asian economy because we realised we could no longer link our future with that of Europe. That was a pretty good punt; it was very visionary. It actually started back in 1972 when Gough Whitlam formally recognised the People's Republic of China. It is always Labor having the guts to make the big reforms. Now the coalition, at a quarter past four on a Thursday afternoon, decide to tell us we are in the Asian century. Welcome to the club!
What do the opposition do in relation to the Asian century? They adopt a trade policy that breaches the World Trade Organisation rules and invites retaliation against Australian manufacturing workers and Australian farmers. In relation to their anti-dumping policy, they say they will stick one-up China; they will implement a policy that definitely breaches the WTO rules, opening up our farmers and our manufacturing workers to retaliation by China and by other countries in our region. One day—this is hilarious—the shadow trade minister said, 'Look, Emerson and Labor ought to accelerate free trade agreement negotiations with China'. I thought that that was politics and you do get a bit of criticism from time to time. The next day, the opposition leader said it should be put on the backburner because China is not a democracy. He always repudiates the shadow trade minister.
Why wouldn't you repudiate the shadow trade minister? I admit that I have been critical of the member for Moncrieff because of how long it was since he last asked me a question. I can reveal today that the member for Moncrieff last asked me a question 806 days ago. But the shadow trade minister has never asked me a question—not one. In fact, today is her 500th anniversary—she can celebrate going 500 days without asking a question as the shadow trade minister. Every time she sticks her head up, the opposition leader knocks it off. He actually said the member for Kooyong knows something about foreign policy, and he said isn't it a relief to have someone on the coalition side that knows something about foreign policy.
Let us not have this feigned indignation and this concern for jobs. This is a coalition that said it would not have had a budget deficit during the global recession. It would have smashed jobs in this country and it would smash jobs again by taking half a billion dollars out of support for the car industry. It has no interest in that industry. The only political party that supports the working men and women of Australia is the great Australian Labor Party, and we will continue to do that while you support Gina Rinehart and do everything you can to smash jobs in this country through a reckless fiscal policy.
Those listening to the debate on the economy through question time and this matter of public importance would surely be amazed to hear the Prime Minister during question time and now the Minister for Trade lecture the Australian public and the opposition on surplus budgets. They would find that unbelievable. Only those opposite, only the minister and those behind him, could suspend their sense of reality on their budget record over the last four years, or over the last years of the Hawke and Keating government, enough to keep a straight face and lecture any member of the Australian public on budget surpluses. I say to members opposite that the more you engage in this ridiculous, unreal argument, the more you insult the Australian families who know that your debt and deficit, your fiscal irresponsibility, costs them dearly at the end of the day. The shadow Treasurer outlined in great detail your failure on jobs and outlined very eloquently your failed fiscal record.
The member for Casey should know he needs to speak through the chair—I do not think I have had a debt crisis.
That is right, but you do bear some share of the blame, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Not when I am in the chair. You need to withdraw that. You have been here long enough to understand the forms of the House.
You are right—not when you are in the chair. I withdraw.
The profligacy and the excess of those opposite—the higher debt and the higher deficits—have costs for Australian families. You have to give the Prime Minister top marks for spin and sheer gall. For those opposite to be lecturing on surplus budgets and on fiscal responsibility when none of them has ever been part of a surplus budget is absolutely ridiculous. Those of us on this side of the House are in no mood to be lectured by those opposite on balanced budgets—not by a political party that has run deficit after deficit every year it has been in office since 1990. If they were a football team they would have a perfect record for all the wrong reasons: zero out of 10. They would surely win the wooden spoon.
Let us have a close look at their record, since they are so interested in this subject. They are so interested in giving lectures and so uninterested in looking at their own record. But their own record is the only thing that matters to Australian families and small businesses. If we go back to 1990-91, we see a deficit of $400 million, rising to $12 billion the following year, to $18 billion the year after that as well as the following year and to $14 billion the year after that. Then—and this will sound familiar to my colleagues on this side of the House—in 1995 the then Labor government promised that the budget would return back to surplus—that it would miraculously turn back within one year. Back in those days, before the Charter of Budget Honesty—introduced by Treasurer Costello—the government did not release the fiscal outlook at the start of an election campaign. So right through that election campaign Labor insisted that the budget was still in surplus. Even those members opposite know about the infamous black hole that the Howard government encountered upon its election. The outcome for the 1995-96 budget was $11 billion.
That was the last six years of the Labor government—back-to-back deficits, helping pile up net government debt of $96 billion. That debt had a tangible cost. It cost $8 billion a year just to service that debt and not pay it off. That was $8 billion that was not spent on roads, schools or hospitals. Luckily, Australia then took a different path. By 1998 the budget was back in surplus and we started chipping away at the debt mountain. It took 10 years from 1996 until 'Debt-Free Day' in April 2006. By 2007, there was $45 billion in the bank as a buffer against the unforeseen. As a result, Australia was uniquely placed when the GFC hit in 2008. Imagine what Australia would have confronted if we had stayed on that path of deficit and debt for all those years—if we had stayed on the Labor path.
For this Prime Minister and Treasurer to claim credit for Australia's performance through the GFC, when it was the work that was done prior to that to prepare Australia against the unforeseen that was responsible, is absolutely shameless. It is like two second-string players appearing on the field during time on in the last quarter of a grand final and trying to convince people that they were responsible for all the match-winning moves. When it comes to economics, it would be embarrassing if it were not so serious.
If we look at the first four years of this Labor government, there is still no surplus. As the shadow Treasurer said, Labor's record has been deficit after deficit. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there has been $167 billion worth of cumulative deficits—$27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion. Then we come to the 2011-12 financial year. The deficit was supposed to be $12 billion—and this is an interesting point, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out. It was 'supposed to be', but what happened? The MYEFO in December 2010—about 15 months ago—pegged this financial year's deficit at $12 billion. Six months later, in the budget, we were told it would be $22.6 billion. Then, at the end of last year—another six months on—it was $37.1 billion. And the year ain't over yet. Those opposite have the hide to try to lecture on budget surpluses when, in the whole lifetime of one of the members on this side of the House, Labor has never delivered one.
The Treasurer is on some sort of Burke and Wills expedition. The government thinks it can airbrush away its own history over more than 20 years, but the public are very familiar with the debt story in Australia, because they have paid the price, over many years, for Labor's failure. It is always the failure of Labor's fiscal competence right here in Canberra that forces Australian families and small businesses to pay the price in their homes and their small businesses. They know in their hearts of hearts that a lack of competence here by this government is leading to a lack of economic confidence throughout Australian small businesses and Australian families. This is backed up in all the official publications that the minister, the Treasurer and his colleagues will never quote from in question time.
But the record of those opposite, for the last 21 years, is of nothing but deficit—
Labor might pretend to be in government, but we all know that it is the Greens that are in charge. I see a wry smile already appearing on the face of the member for Eden-Monaro, because I think in his heart of hearts he knows it to be true. It is the inner-city Greens ideology that has driven the minister for the environment to ban the Victorian government's trial of cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park. I remember seeing in this place last year the minister for the environment ridicule the potential for cattle grazing to reduce the severity of bushfires in the Victorian high country. He has repeatedly admitted his bias against the cattlemen, and he is so blinded by his prejudice against their cause and by his devotion to the Greens that he has never given them the chance to meet with him and present their case. The only attempt at consultation the minister of the environment undertook was a publicity stunt last year, when he flew to Mt Hotham for a photo opportunity. He drove around the bush for a couple of hours, found a deer wallow, said it was evidence of damage by cattle and returned home to the genteel suburbs of Sydney.
I digress for a moment because I want to note that that is one of the biggest problems with the current government. There is not one cabinet minister who actually lives in regional Australia. For this Labor government at the very highest level, regional Australia is a place that you visit sometimes—maybe for a holiday but more likely just for a photo opportunity. What hope do people at the Mountain Cattlemens Association of Victoria have when none of the cabinet ministers have an appreciation of regional life and they see their policy decisions through the prism of suburban experience—not from living amongst the farmers, the fishermen, the forestry workers and workers in other professions which are traditional in regional areas? So it was bitterly disappointing, but absolutely no surprise at all, when the Sydney union organiser who became the minister for the environment decided to ban cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park, despite the fact the Victorian government won a clear mandate at the last state election to introduce its trial.
The minister's reflections in this place in relation to the possibility of using grazing to reduce the bushfire fuel loads was another demonstration of the rank hypocrisy we have seen from the Labor Party on this issue. I want to refer to a media release from the ACT Labor government. It was released in October last year and quotes the Manager of the Fire Management Unit, Neil Cooper, as saying:
'Grazing is a crucial, if oft forgotten, component of the ACT’s hazard reduction program …
… … …
'Strategic grazing serves to not only remove bushfire fuel, but it also ensures the remaining fuels are compacted.
… … …
'This year we intend to graze more than 7000 hectares across 76 separate sites.
I hope the minister is listening to this. Strategic cattle grazing removes bushfire fuel in the ACT.
Let's get this right: it is okay for the Labor Party to use cattle to protect homes in Canberra but not to help save lives, properties and the environment in the Victorian high country! I call on the minister to simply admit that his decision to ban grazing in the Alpine National Park was all about pleasing the Greens. Regional Victorians will never forget this. They will never forgive this government for its contempt for country people and its contempt for the more than 150-year heritage of the mountain cattlemen.
In the time I have remaining I want to refer to some comments made by the Mountain Cattlemens Association president, Mark Coleman, during a recent parliamentary hearing in Traralgon. Mr Coleman's comments are already on the public record, but I think they are worth repeating here, in this, the people's House. Mr Coleman was asked to provide some background information on his group's concerns. He described the Alpine National Park and summarised the issues as follows:
The land ranges from high alpine peaks to low river flats and mid-range country. Management of such a diverse area cannot be a one size fits all. People who live around the edge of this massive park know a lot about management. They talk about it all the time. Every summer, they live and work with the reality of fire. The problem is that decisions of management are influenced by people with other agendas, and those people do not have to live within the park.
… … …
Minister Burke saw an opportunity and took up the issue for political gain for his government. The minister began using the same words as the conservation movement and the Greens, showing that he was working in tandem with them. The minister said a lot of outrageous things that were untrue about the cattlemen and the trials. … The very good name and reputation of the cattlemen has been trashed for political advantage.
Mr Coleman went on to point out the many advantages of bushfire reduction and the opportunity to use cattle as part of an overall management plan. It is there on the public record for people that would like to check.
The mountain cattlemen and their families are typical of many of the types of people you meet in regional Australia. They are very resilient, honest, hardworking and practical people who believe in practical land management. They respect the environment and love the lifestyle they have enjoyed over many, many years. They have cared for the high country over more than 150 years and left it in such good condition that it was declared a national park after 150 years of grazing.
When will someone in this government recognise that attacking the heritage and the lifestyle of regional Australians simply has to stop? To put it simply: country people have had an absolute gutful of being told how to live their lives by city based Greens and Labor MPs who show us no respect and treat us with contempt. (Time expired)
I present a petition from 11,916 petitioners calling on the House to withdraw federal funding for the proposed new coal fired power station in Victoria, called HRL, and invest in a clean renewable energy future for Victoria instead.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Australian citizens draws to the attention of the House the Federal and Victorian Governments funding of $150 million toward a new polluting coal-fired power station in Victoria, called HRL. At a time when Australia is taking historic steps to act on climate change, this coal-fired power station will pump millions of tonnes of greenhouse pollution into our atmosphere each year. We believe in a clean, renewable energy future for Victoria not new polluting coal. We the undersigned call on the House to withdraw all federal funding for this project and invest in a clean, renewable energy future for Victoria instead.
from 11,916 citizens
Petition received.
Victoria currently has 120 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year. Victoria has a legislated target, it is Victorian law, that this must reduce by 20 per cent by 2020—in other words, come down by 24 million tonnes a year. I am told by Environment Victoria that, if the HRL 600-megawatt power station proceeds, it will produce around four million tonnes of carbon emissions every year.
Why don't we shut down the whole Latrobe Valley then?
The member talked about city members showing country members some respect. I listened to his nonsense about the Alpine National Park in silence. He should provide the same courtesy.
Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will remain silent. He was heard in silence, as will be the honourable member for Wills.
It is hard to see how we can meet a target which is minus 24 million tonnes if we proceed with projects that are plus four million tonnes. The only money this project has so far is government money. The Howard government allocated it $100 million in 2007, but the money has not yet been spent, as the conditions for spending the money have not been met. The state government allocated $50 million. I understand most of this money has not yet been spent. The HRL project has no private money. Environment Victoria has advised me that in 2009 HRL lost their major Chinese partner, who withdrew their 50 per cent stake and are no longer involved. In 2011 Australia's big four banks all announced that they would not be involved in the project, and in October 2011 a number of international banks declared that they too would not finance the proposed power station, with HSBC indicating that HRL was too polluting for them to invest in. According to Environment Victoria, HRL's project costs have blown out—from $750 million in 2007 to at least $1.1 billion now.
The Commonwealth government is presently reviewing this proposed outlay, and the state government should be doing the same. The Commonwealth government is committed to producing a budget surplus next year, which is not easy given the global economic circumstances, and there are better ways to spend, or not spend, $100 million. And the state government says it cannot afford to underground powerlines in bushfire prone areas, even though the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission says it is a bad idea to have our electricity infrastructure and assets above ground on days of high fire danger risk.
The state government says this power plant is necessary to meet Victoria's power needs, but they put roadblocks in the way of renewable energy. They are requiring wind energy proposals to have the consent of every person living within two kilometres of the turbines. Seriously, have you ever heard of any other item of energy or transport infrastructure where this is the case—freeways, airports or power stations? I have constituents who are opposing the Brunswick terminal station upgrade who would give their right arm to have a two-kilometre-wide power of veto. The state government is ringbarking renewable energy while bankrolling fossil fuels.
On Monday last week the United Nations High Level Panel on Global Sustainability delivered its report to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. It has some heavy-duty players on it. I had the pleasure of listening to them at the United Nations in New York last year: Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland; Jacob Zuma, President of the Republic of South Africa; Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs and former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd; and the former Prime Minister of Mozambique, Luisa Diogo. Among 56 recommendations, this panel recommended that governments should phase out subsidies for fossil fuels by 2020. I repeat: the United Nations High Level Panel on Global Sustainability last week recommended that governments phase out subsidies for fossil fuels by 2020. The HRL grants would be a good place to start.
The member opposite asked about jobs. People will naturally ask about jobs. This power station is likely to be built overseas, so there is not much in the way of construction jobs there. I am told that HRL said to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that there would be 35 ongoing operational jobs, so there will be more jobs in alternative uses of the money promoting the renewable energy economy, which is the economy of the future. (Time expired)
The petition lodged by the member for Wills is received pursuant to standing order 207(b)(iii). I understand that it has been approved by the Petitions Committee.
It is no secret that, over the past four or five years, under both state and federal Labor governments and a Labor dominated local government in Cairns, Cairns and the region have been struggling. Labor continually argues that it is all about the global financial crisis, but unfortunately it is a lot more to do with the fact that there has been very little investment in the area from a government perspective. There appears to be an absolute lack of vision. The region is heavily reliant on tourism and it has been suffering immensely, particularly given that the markets from which we take our tourists—Japan, the United States and Europe—have also been suffering,
There has been an effort to maximise opportunities in the region by building on the capacity that we already have, recognising that we have in the vicinity of 26,000 hotel rooms and a whole array of restaurants and other existing infrastructure and recognising that tourism tends to be seasonal, with the summer period being the down time. The idea was born that we should look at setting our region up as the fourth tropical sporting capital in the world. At the moment there is Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Singapore; there is no reason why Cairns could not be the fourth. Over the next decade, many international events will be held in tropical areas. We already send many of our elite athletes into tropical conditions in these destinations for months at a time.
Through that concept the Cairns Business and Sporting Group was born. Members of the group include the General Manager of the Shangri-La Hotel, Rob Weedon; John O'Brien, a well-known Cairns citizen; representatives of the Chamber of Commerce; representatives from tourism; and representatives from hockey and all of the big sporting entities in town. The group worked on a framework to establish what we hope will eventually become the tropical campus of the Australian Institute of Sport. They spent close to 12 months on this project and came up with a comprehensive package.
The project was endorsed by the Queensland Chamber of Commerce, Advance Cairns and Tourism Tropical North Queensland. They all thought it was a great thing for us to strive for to start to make things happen. When the project was finished, as a courtesy it was passed on to council and they were asked to be involved in it. I was absolutely gobsmacked today to read responses from our loony left councillors—obviously one-term councillors. Councillor Kirsten Lesina, who is going to be standing at the next state election, claimed that the group lied about projects, saying that they were ready for construction. Councillor Di Forsyth said they were a waste of councillors' time and the mayor, Councillor Schier, said that it was a bit of a hodge-podge list. While she acknowledged the importance of upgrading facilities, she said that there was really nothing in there that was worth working for with the council.
I find that amazing, when the council, and these three councillors in particular, finds that the most practical way to try to create industry and opportunities for Far North Queensland is to try to get into the Guinness book of records for zumba and to try to create a ukelele festival. The council has been absolutely focused on a performing arts precinct in Cairns, where at least half of the population is totally opposed to the idea of it, but it has locked in the money that is to be spent. At the end of the day it will accommodate something like a thousand patrons and will do absolutely nothing for the economy. Their comments are a slight not just on me, who strongly endorses this vision for a tropical campus for our athletes, but on all those well-meaning sports and business people who have put a lot of their own time into making this happen. (Time expired)
I rise this afternoon to inform the parliament about the positive action being taken by the federal Labor government in the electorate of Bass. I am so proud of the Gillard government's support for so many different facets of the Bass community. For instance, we have invested $70 million into local schools in the last four years. Mr Speaker, you should see the great new library at East Launceston Primary School, the wonderful undercover courtyard at Invermay Primary School and the fantastic new language centre at Scottsdale High School. A further $8 million commitment has seen trade training centres open in George Town and Scottsdale High Schools, and a third trade training centre, at St Patrick's College in Launceston, is underway. This is a fantastic commitment to local secondary students, who will have access to state-of-the-art training facilities and who will be able to acquire the skills they need for a trades career. The Bass electorate has the Green Skills Centre for Excellence at the Alanvale Campus of the Skills Institute—with $6.4 million from the federal Labor government—and more than $5.8 million has been provided for Tasmanian Polytechnic's Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre.
Between 1997 and 2007, the former coalition government spent $4.4 billion on education infrastructure. This compares to the Labor government's spending of $16.2 billion in just the last four years, thereby maintaining employment across the country and transforming the learning experience for Australian students. The Gillard government has invested more than $160.9 million into Bass for health. Compare this to the piddling $32.31 million from the former government—an amazing additional $128 million from Labor. As well, $3.3 million went to the Windsor Park Multipurpose Community, Leisure and Wellbeing Centre project, and there were grants towards the infrastructure for five improved medical practices. We have delivered 54 new social housing units in Ravenswood, for the Door of Hope and the Thyne Building. Bass has been the recipient of TQUAL grants, Veteran and Community Grants and numerous volunteer grants. The government has also invested in vital water infrastructure in the north-east of Tasmania.
The federal Labor government has committed $18.7 million for the Scottsdale Defence Science and Technology Organisation upgrade. The coalition talked about this investment for DSTO for 11 years, but never delivered. These projects link food production and innovation, food technology, food industry training and service delivery. Forty projects have been funded under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, including $4.2 million for Aurora Stadium, which many of you might know as being the home of the Tassie Hawks.
There are another nine projects nearing completion in Bass and I look forward to seeing the benefits these various developments will bring to the electorate. We have committed $11.5 million for flood levees and I remain committed to the long-term health of the Tamar River. In 2010 the Liberal candidate secured a promise of $2.5 million for superficial silt removal in the Tamar River. I ask: is this money part of the Liberals' $70 billion black hole or is it just another hollow pledge by the Liberal Party that it has no hope of funding? The new fly-in candidate for Bass, a bureaucrat from Canberra, claims credit for the $2.5 million which was negotiated by Steve Titmus. Compare this to the $11.5 million from Labor.
Bass is a fantastic electorate and one of the best parts of Australia, and I am proud to represent it. I am pleased the member for Indi has enjoyed her stay in Northern Tasmania. I welcome anyone to come and visit and to enjoy our great Tassie hospitality.
The Sutherland shire is renowned for its hard-working, dedicated volunteers, who make the shire a better place to live and raise a family—it is my job to do all I can to ensure it stays that way. The Cook Community Classic harnesses this community spirit to empower our volunteers to help raise funds and raise awareness for more than 30 local community organisations and charities, including our local Bate Bay surf clubs, who joined with me in 2008 to create this unique event. The classic involves a major raffle and a gala ball, and culminates in a family community event at Cronulla Beach and Cronulla Park, featuring a surf carnival hosted by the four Bate Bay surf lifesaving clubs, which Wanda won this year. Since the inaugural event in 2008, the classic has raised more than $275,000, including just over $75,000 at last year's event. I especially want to thank IMB for its generous support and Julie Adams for her tireless efforts in organising this event.
It is one of the participating charities that I will draw the attention of the House to today. Gymea resident Dr Karen Crawley has for the past few years helped to run the Australian Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, inspired by her daughter's struggle against this debilitating and often fatal illness. Mitochondrial disease is a genetic disorder that robs the body source of energy, causing multiple organ dysfunction or failure. The mitochondria are the powerhouses of our cells, providing the body with over 90 per cent of the energy it needs to sustain life. Mitochondrial disease reduces the ability of the mitochondria to produce this energy. When mitochondria do not work properly cells begin to die until eventually whole organs fail. It is a life-threatening disease that has struck Dr Crawley's daughter Kara. Like most children who suffer from this cruel affliction, Kara is slowly being robbed of her senses, her brain function and, sadly, her life. It is a devastating scenario and unfortunately one that many families and individuals suffer today. Indeed, doctors have told Karen that mitochondrial disease may also affect her 11-year-old son, Braden, and her.
Every year 50 children will develop a severe or life-threatening form of mitochondrial disease. For all of the cruelty of this disease and its prevalence, it remains at the bottom of the ladder in terms of research, knowledge and funding. Due to dedicated volunteers like Karen, the foundation is working hard at advocating for research into this terrible disease and offering support to those affected by it. Known in the medical profession as the 'notorious masquerader', mitochondrial disease can literally defy diagnosis for years and is difficult to treat—and a cure remains elusive. So little is known about it that often sufferers are diagnosed only on their deathbed or autopsy. Many patients are moved from specialist to specialist at great cost and with little result or can be sent to psychologists or psychiatrists, convinced by experts that there is nothing physically wrong with them. Proper diagnosis could lead to more effective and earlier treatment as well as save patients thousands of dollars in consultations and medicines. Researchers also increasingly believe that mitochondrial dysfunction may be a significant factor in a wide range of major diseases and that improvements in mitochondrial medicine may eventually provide a key to better health and quality of life in older age.
Each year the foundation runs an annual Stay in Bed Day in September as part of Global Mitochondrial Disease Awareness Week. It encourages people to dress up in their pyjamas and hop into bed, the significance being that one of the first signs of the disease is a persistent fatigue. Schools and kindergartens in my own electorate of Cook are already getting involved, including Bonnet Bay primary school and the Wyralla Road Kindergarten at Miranda.
This is a matter that I think needs the attention of this House and of people on both sides of this chamber. It is something that Karen and her family struggle with on a daily basis. I am very pleased that in a small way the Cook Community Classic has been able to provide some support in their struggle and fight. I look forward to making announcements over the course of the year on other things we are able to do, particularly in the course of the special awareness week in September where we hope to raise further funds for mitochondrial disease research and support.
I am proud that the Cook Community Classic has been able to, as I say, support not only this worthy cause but so many other worthy causes within our local community. I look forward to that continuing well into the future. There are many who have supported this event. The local surf clubs have done an outstanding job. They joined with me early in starting this event a number of years ago. Our surf clubs are well known for looking out to sea and supporting and saving the lives of people in our community. This is an event where they turn back to the land and provide that same support to people in our community throughout their lives. My thoughts and prayers are with Karen and the rest of her family at this time and we look forward to the support we can give them in the future.
I rise to add my support for jobs in Australia, particularly manufacturing jobs, as manufacturing is central to our Australian economy and plays a vital role in the economy of Newcastle. Hunter Valley Research Foundation figures show manufacturing in the Hunter remains strong, employing 11.1 per cent of our workforce, compared with 8.9 per cent nationally. Our region has created an additional 4,000 new manufacturing jobs in the sector.
But the question for everyone interested in manufacturing is about the future: how will Australian manufacturing fare in the challenges that confront our patchwork economy? These challenges include the shortage and cost of skilled labour, the ongoing impact and uncertainty of the GFC, disparate interest rates for equity loans, the high Australian dollar and the flow-on effect of high commodity prices.
Interestingly, in our first week of parliament we have heard nothing from the opposition on this pressing matter of public importance, just their continuation of 'playing the man' and their promise to slash jobs in the aluminium and steel industries, jobs in the automotive industry and public sector jobs.
Let me contrast this missing-in-action approach with that of HunterNet, the manufacturing cluster organisation in my region. They say:
The message we are getting from government is that to compete in the global supply chain, local industry has to be innovative and focus on high tech and niche market segments. While this makes sense in going forward, it will be a major challenge for most SME's … Nevertheless we have a resilient industry as the Hunter has demonstrated particularly over the last two decades, and our skills and innovative processes have developed significantly over this time.
They continue by saying:
So let's accept the challenges to meet the new paradigm. HunterNet is determined to continue to work with members to facilitate this process, so that together in our 20th year since incorporation we can ensure that we look forward to the next twenty years as a time of even greater progress and growth.
Wow! There are 200 companies in HunterNet and they will work together to confront the challenges of the Asian century. Contrast that to attitude in the new paradigm of the opposition—just say no to assisting industry and blame all job losses on the yet-to-be-introduced carbon price.
The Australian dollar remains high and manufacturers are doing it tough in a competitive international market, but Labor's priority is jobs. We are working with the local manufacturers through the Prime Minister's Taskforce on Manufacturing, we are fostering innovation within the sector and we are driving competitiveness and boosting productivity.
In today's Australian, BHP Chairman and former Ford CEO Jacques Nasser stated that carmakers had invested billions of dollars into the Australian car industry and it would be 'short-sighted not to support them in a very traumatic period'. Car manufacturing is a sector that governments around the world have supported. We are supporting the automotive industry and are determined to provide the sector the certainty required for some long-term investment.
Our $300 million Steel Transformation Plan is supporting Australian steel-makers. In December it was announced BlueScope Steel would receive an advance payment of $100 million. OneSteel is also receiving an advance payment of $64 million under the plan. Our Clean Technology Program is providing $1.2 billion in order to upgrade capital equipment and to carry out research and development in industry, ensuring Australia remains competitive in a carbon constrained world. Our Jobs and Competitiveness Program will provide $9.2 billion to assist manufacturers to remain globally competitive in important industries such as aluminium, steel, zinc and lead. We are supporting research and development through the R&D tax incentive, the single biggest reform to business innovation support in more than a decade.
The opposition, though, say no to supporting manufacturers, no to the car industry and no to Australian workers, intending to cut investment in the sector, slashing $500 million from the $3.4 billion Automotive Transformation Scheme. This is not good enough for the 46,000 Australians employed in the car industry, nor the 200,000 workers that rely in part on that sector for their own jobs—workers in steel, aluminium, glass, precision tool making and engineering. These are all capabilities that we need to retain in this country.
Manufacturing has very wide-reaching benefits. It benefits scientists and engineers. One in five engineers are employed directly in the sector. One-quarter of private research and development in Australia is undertaken by our manufacturing sector. The skills and training fostered by the sector are regarded as the core of a strong, modern economy, as trained workers are able to utilise their skills in other sectors, such as transport, infrastructure, power generation and telecommunications.
By supporting manufacturing, we are supporting Australian knowledge, Australian innovation, Australian skills, Australian jobs and Australia's future. As the Minister for Manufacturing said, 'This is about a fight for jobs, a fight for Australian jobs'—and Labor stands for jobs. These are challenging times, but we are determined to assist our manufacturing sector to enhance innovation, diversity and resilience so that our manufacturing thrives now and into the future. (Time expired)
House adjourned at 17:00
I rise today to highlight how on Tuesday, the first sitting day back after the Christmas break, there was an item scheduled for debate to deal with administrative changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The opposition signalled that what we aimed to do is not only support those amendments that the government has brought forward, which take account of circumstances and experience that has arisen since the introduction of the scheme, but also move some additional amendments that give employers big and small the option of not being an unpaid pay clerk for the Commonwealth. As it currently stands the Commonwealth insists upon all employers, big and small—whether or not they have the capacity or the willingness and whether or not they are even able to make the changes within their systems—handling the money on behalf of the Commonwealth as a go-between between the taxpayer funding and the eligible recipient. This is just needless, unnecessary and unwanted red tape. Small businesses are time poor. They do not need to carry the additional administrative burden for no good reason. There is no public policy justification whatsoever for imposing this additional regulatory and compliance cost on small business.
So it was a very simple, practical and, I think, extraordinarily well supported measure, if I can go by the statements from small businesses around Australia and the small business community. But what happened? This legislative amendment has gone into the Bermuda Triangle! It has just disappeared. It has just gone. People are looking there thinking, 'Where's it gone? It was on the Notice Paper.' It has not been seen since. It has escaped. It is like the Ronald Biggs of parliamentary reform! It has just gone and no-one knows where it has gone.
My concern is that I suspect it has been withdrawn from the business agenda for the House of Representatives because the government knows its position is indefensible. It knows any fair-minded person can see there is no upside and no public policy justification for an additional red-tape burden, particularly on small business. Our amendment basically says that, if the government wants to outsource that pay clerk function, it should have the consent of the employer and the eligible recipient.
I accept there are some companies who do not care. I know Sony came out last time we raised this measure, saying they were perfectly happy with it. They have probably got more staff in their pay office than most small businesses in a country town have in total. That is fine for them. They are in a position to handle that payment. In fact, they already had an employer funded payment that they were just going to top up with the Commonwealth's money. But small businesses are not in that situation. They do not have that expensive infrastructure just sitting there ready to do one extra task. I call on the government to bring this legislation forward and give small business some comfort that the government understands the pressure they are under. The Minister for Small Business, Mark Arbib, said he would knock down doors to make sure small business's voice was heard. Well, he has gone from door buster to feather duster! He has just been brushed aside here and then he has come out attacking me for even raising the issue. So now he is just verbal bluster. How about something constructive for the small business community? Please bring on this legislation and fix it properly for small business. (Time expired)
Welcome back, Member for Dunkley! On 5 December last year I had the honour to acknowledge 46 outstanding young students at the 2011 Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards Ceremony. The Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards have been held for 10 years. I created them because I wanted to bring our community together to tell the great stories of our young people and to celebrate the fact that our community is a great place to live, to work and to raise a family.
Award winners are nominated by their school and receive a framed certificate and gift voucher. On the evening of 5 December I was able to acknowledge the students for their contribution and the hard work and dedication they have shown in their schools and our local community. The testimonials from the schools are absolutely outstanding. I want to read their names into the parliamentary record. There are 46 of them: Jessica Bowler, Cameron Hawkins, Samantha Chapman, Duygu Ozturk, Zoja Kovacs, Amber O'Donnell, Melissa Vorster, Mitchell Caddaye, Jason Henshall, Javiera Lizana-Rivas, Jacinta Watts, Adam Keating, Tiara Fernandez, Andrew Leime, Slone Sudiro, Skye Thompson, Shani Jones, Puoch Puoch, Ben Hill, Natasha Rallis, Damon Weeks, Charlotte Capper, Dalina Nath, Mitchell Hunt, Ashleigh McDonnell, Kelly Lenehan, James Cole-Sinclair, Shaylah Portelli-Moore, Jasmine Sadler, Abbey Smith, Lauren Alley, Katie Hopcraft, Sarah Castricum, Dilushi Premathlaka, Brandon Knowles, Tiger Chatzis, Lydia Paull, Eid Yusofi, Shohana Akbar, James Toskov, Tony Yalda, Damien Ruttun, Kyle Fernandes, Brittany Hay, Cayne Tagliaferro, Helani Jayawardhana and Caitlin Bibby. That is a long list of names. One of the incredible things when, as a member of parliament, you are presenting awards of this type is listening to the stories of our young people. One of the young people who was mentioned in these awards raised $3,000 and shaved his head in order to raise money to provide treatment for women with leukaemia. There are so many incidents and so many stories of young people making an active contribution to their community.
Down our way, if something bad happens in our community it appears on the front page of the papers, be it speeding or other sorts of things that occur. But when great stories about people, such as the 46 people whose names I have read out, and their contribution to the community are put forward they are very rarely reported in the national or broader local media. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, good news that enhances a community is hard to get up, but I will continue to do so until people understand what a great bunch of kids we have in our area.
I rise to applaud the great work of five residents in my electorate of Bennelong, who were recognised in the recent Australia Day honours. Dr John Keneally, from Gladesville, was awarded an AM for his services to medicine. As the former Head of the Department of Anaesthesia at the Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, Dr Keneally has a longstanding specialisation in paediatric anaesthesia and pain management, together with roles as an academic and an adviser on public health organisations. His services to medicine and to our broader community have led to this long-overdue honour, particularly when compared to the recognition given to his brother Thomas and daughter-in-law, Kristina.
Emeritus Professor Brian Fletcher, from Eastwood, was awarded an OAM for his services to education in the field of Australian history. As an academic, researcher and author, Professor Fletcher served as the Bicentennial Chair of Australian History at the University of Sydney from 1987 to 1999. He has authored 10 books and, in 2007, was awarded the annual History Citation by the History Council of New South Wales. Professor Fletcher is also an active member of St Alban’s Church in Epping, just down the road from my electorate office.
Mr Bruce Walton, from Carlingford, was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal. Mr Walton has served the North Rocks Brigade of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service for nearly 40 years in a variety of positions. He is currently the Deputy Group Captain of the Hills District. He has worked extensively in the Rural Fire Service Critical Response Incident Support Group and, in 2005, he represented the Rural Fire Service at the World Congress on Trauma and Coping in the United States.
Mrs Suzanne Ward, a previous recipient of an OAM, was awarded the title of 2012 City of Ryde Citizen of the Year, following decades of dedication to and tireless efforts for her family and local community, carrying the respect and admiration of all who know her. Many years ago Mrs Ward and her husband, Terry, adopted five babies with various physical and intellectual disabilities, including epilepsy, spina bifida and Asperger’s syndrome. They raised those children, who are now all aged in their 40s, to become self-supporting, independent and productive members of our community, including gaining success in gymnastics at the Special Olympics and state representation in basketball, as well as in swimming, sailing and water polo. Their children’s achievements are a real credit to the commitment, hard work and love that Mr and Mrs Ward have given. Mrs Ward has been an active fundraiser for a range of local charities and has given many hours to local special schools and youth clubs. This has included work for the local disability services organisation, RASAID, whose efforts I have praised in this place several times before.
Mr Geoffrey Ward was awarded the title of 2012 City of Ryde Young Citizen of the Year for his strong commitment— (Time expired)
It is well known that my electorate on Brisbane's south side was hit hard by floods last year. We saw firsthand the destructive force of Mother Nature. We saw also the community spring into action as strangers helped strangers clean up after the worst of the flooding had passed. And it is in this spirit of solidarity that I rise today on behalf of my constituents to express support for the people out in western Queensland, in places like Roma and Mitchell, who have been hit by floods in the last week.
Earlier this week the mayor of the Maranoa Regional Council, Robert Loughnan, contacted me. He knew that I had a bit of an idea of what he was going through with his community. He outlined to me the destruction that has just occurred in Mitchell. Seventy-five per cent of the town's structures were inundated by water. All but two of 30 local businesses were flooded—businesses such as the bakery, which had lost $450,000 worth of equipment. As the council puts it, the departure of one or two small businesses in a small town is a serious matter; however, the loss of 10 or 15 businesses in a town like Mitchell will alter the social fabric of an entire region.
We talked about the destruction, we talked about the clean-up and most importantly we talked about how you make sure all this does not happen again and how you make sure that the infrastructure stands up to the test at times when we are seeing record-breaking floods. A levee around the evacuation centre has been discussed and is worthy of investigation; in fact, it is worthy of action. Having spoken to the member for Maranoa about this, it is important that all levels of government combine to make sure that proper protections are put in place for the future in communities like Mitchell which, I am advised, have not been so affected to such an order of magnitude before. But something big is happening out in that part of Australia in terms of unprecedented flood levels. The mayor also informed me that there was a need for approximately $130 million of work on the regional road network as a result of previous floods, coupled with unprecedented usage of our rural road network by ever-expanding gas corporations.
I started by saying that I am here to express solidarity with the people of my electorate, with the people experiencing devastating events right now. I acknowledge the work of all local, state and federal members dealing with the current flood challenge in western Queensland—in particular, my colleague the member for Maranoa, in working with his local community—and if there were to be any one of us going through this I would hope that other members would express their support for constituents going through this at this time as well.
A group of determined women from my Riverina electorate have banded together and will descend upon Canberra this month to champion their fight for a sensible outcome in the water debate. It is now more than halfway through the consultation period for the Murray-Darling Basin draft. People in regional communities are desperately worried about whether they have a future, and whether the government even cares. Helen Dalton from Binya is organising a group called Women for a Living Basin, the members of which are all passionate that a triple-bottom-line approach is adopted in any decisions made about the Murray-Darling system and the people whose lives depend upon it. Women for a Living Basin will be in Parliament House on Wednesday, 29 February, and meetings have been arranged with people who can make a real difference to the water issue.
I am pleased that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has agreed to see the group. I hope he listens to and takes on board what they will tell him. He was in Griffith, as was the opposition leader, for the community rally on 15 December last year when 12,000 proud locals turned out to air their deep, warranted and united concerns about the latest draft. It was people power at its best, and I was so proud that so many attended in support of their communities, their livelihoods and their children's futures.
Women for a Living Basin also includes Brigitte Bode from Merungle Hill; Debbie Buller from Griffith, who is also the president of the Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Association Inc.; Shona Hando from Coleambally and Virginia Tropeano from Hanwood, as well as many others. These are all committed, driven and vocal women who want common sense and fairness to prevail and who want to see their fantastic region able to continue to grow the food to feed this nation and other nations.
Coleambally irrigator Mrs Hando told her local newspaper, the Observer:
Rural women want to know if there is a future for their families in communities like Coleambally that were established specifically for the purpose of irrigation.
… … …
To maintain these facilities, community population needs to be maintained. Less water in the CIA—
the Coleambally Irrigation Area—
would mean less jobs and less people. Critical mass would be lost.
The delegation was originally formed as the women were aware there were others with similar thoughts who had ideas about the Murray-Darling Basin and who wanted to make these thoughts known.
The Leader of the Nationals, the shadow minister for regional development, local government and water and the shadow minister for agriculture and food security will also meet the delegation. The offer is open to all members of parliament and senators to meet with and, more importantly, listen to the Women for a Living Basin and hear their concerns. Invitations have been sent. These women feel that it is now or never and that they need to be in there fighting before decisions are made which will permanently affect their communities.
I rise to speak about the Victorian Liberal government's intention to increase public housing rent for pensioners and also about recent Australia Day and Vietnamese New Year celebrations in my electorate. In 2009, the federal Labor government implemented historic reforms to the pension system to help Australian pensioners with cost-of-living pressures. For the 23,900 pensioners living in my electorate, this was fantastic news. Since September 2009, the government's reforms have delivered increases to the maximum pension rate of about $148 per fortnight for singles and $146 per fortnight for couples, combined. At the time of these important Labor reforms, all states and territories rightly agreed to quarantine this pension increase from rent calculations to assist pensioners to make ends meet. This protection for pensioners has been ripped away by the Baillieu government, which has revoked the Victorian government commitment and is trying to extract an extra $10 per week from the most vulnerable in our community.
This came as a great shock to my constituent Anton Bennett, who could not understand why the Baillieu government would deliver this hit to pensioners. While I share Anton's dismay, pensioners in my electorate should not be surprised by the Baillieu government's contempt for Victorians. This is a Liberal government that has already cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the state education budget, slashed VCAL funding and cut the Take a Break program, and it now has vulnerable pensioners in its sights. While state Liberal MPs Lorraine Wreford, Donna Bauer and Inga Peulich have been silent on the damaging cuts to education, this recent blow to pensioners serves as a perfect opportunity for them to stand up for their constituents and demand that Mr Baillieu reinstate the agreement to quarantine the federal Labor government's 2009 pension increases from public housing rent calculations.
On a more positive note, I recently attended Australia Day celebrations in the cities of Kingston and Frankston. The celebrations honoured the citizens of the year and welcomed our newest Australian citizens. I congratulate Kingston's Citizen of the Year, Thelma Mansfield; Outstanding Citizen of the year, Brian Lowe; and Young Citizen of the Year, Jack Styles, on their awards. I also congratulate Frankston's Citizen of the Year, Gwen Dearsley, and Young Citizen of the Year, Kimberley Pellosis. Former mayor of Kingston Ron Brownlees and former mayor of Moorabbin Neil Hamilton were awarded the Order of Australia Medal for their many years of service to local government and the community. I thank Ron and Neil for their long and excellent service.
Last Sunday, I joined thousands of people to celebrate the Year of the Dragon at the Vietnamese Tet festival at Sandown Park. The crowds were treated to traditional ceremonies, breathtaking lion dancers, fireworks and family fun activities. This year's festival also commemorated 50 years since the initial involvement of Australian forces in Vietnam. I thank Bon Nguyen, President of the Victorian Chapter of the Vietnamese Community in Australia and Phong Nguyen, President of the Vietnamese Community in Australia, who was recently appointed by our government as a People of Australia Ambassador for organising such a great community event.
A couple of days of after Australia Day, I received a letter from Mr Don Denman of Nowra. Mr Denman is 72 and his wife is 75. Both are pensioners living in a department of housing house. I would like to read a portion of his letter because it encapsulates an unsatisfactory dilemma confronting many pensioners living in public housing in Gilmore as they face the day when analogue television will forever be turned off to them. He writes, and what he has written makes me just a little bit sad:
I rang the government phone line about the change over and as I have a digital TV sort of working on an indoor antenna not very well, they cannot help us unless we owned our own house and that we will have to talk to housing commission.
All we need is an outdoor digital antenna.
We went to see the housing commission and was told that they cannot help us as we are in a house and not units and that we will have to pay for it ourselves.
We live just on the old age pension and pay 25 per cent of that to housing. We have a car to run as we can't hop in and out of busses—
Because there are no buses—
a monthly telephone, electricity and thanks to the government, this keeps going up.
It seems to us that the governments of today are treating us worse than they would treat a leper. It will cost about $300 to $350 to supply and install a digital TV antenna.
This is more than I get a week.
As well as bills and rent, we have to buy food. On food, I spend $50 a week and a little more when we can afford it.
I cannot buy one and put in myself as I have arthritis in both knees, both hips and right shoulder.
My wife is disabled with 60% of use gone in her left leg so she cannot do it and in any case we just cannot afford it.
After the TV is turned off in June, we will not have television except for Channel 9 and only this when the weather is good.
He has written more, but as can be well imagined it is laced with comments that reflect a sense of betrayal over this and other injustices faced by aged pensioners. If that is not enough, four weeks after he loses his TV signal he will have to face up to the impact of the carbon tax. He adds:
I don't usually complain about things but enough is enough!
Yes, he will be given his set-top box and it will be installed, but it will be as much use to him as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
Surely the government cannot continue its pattern of incompetence. Didn't anyone think this through? I am sure it is not an isolated case, and it is incumbent on the government to deliver a product that will actually work. Mr Denman and his wife deserve better than being treated with insolent contempt like this. Perhaps he was right in his observation when he said:
It's a big joke, isn't it?
I just want to add that Mr Denman served for seven years in the Royal Australian Navy and spent eight years with the department of main roads as a foreman on bridge works as well as managing other jobs. He says:
I'm a proud Australian and I'm worried about what is happening to my country.
Today at a breakfast here in Parliament House the National Aged Care Alliance launched their paper 'Australians deserve to age well—preparing for our future now'. This paper looks into developing the Productivity Commission's report and it provides positive suggestions for the future. The breakfast was co-funded by the Parliamentary Friends of Seniors and Ageing and two other parliamentary friends groups.
This parliament has been very active in the area of ageing and has been looking at the needs of an ageing population into the future, given that Australia's population is ageing at a very fast rate. Events such as the breakfast this morning, which is looking to the future and developing plans and blueprints for where Australia goes, are very important. It is to the credit of the alliance that they have looked at the Productivity Commission's report, which was released last year, and ways in which that report can be implemented. It identifies the issues that are very important to older Australians and their carers, to those working within the aged care industry and to those who are supplying aged care services for people. It acknowledges the importance of being able to supply aged care both within the home and within residential care packages and of the need for more aged care to be provided within the home. The report identifies the fact that aged-care facilities are often some distance from the home of the person who needs to reside in residential aged care.
I would like to congratulate the National Aged Care Alliance on the positive report that they have launched today and I would like to encourage members to visit the expo that is going to be taking place here until about three o'clock. There is a lot of useful information, and I would like members to take that information back to their electorates because we should never underestimate the importance of providing for people as they become frail and aged. This is a very important role that we as members of parliament need to play.
I rise today to recognise that last Saturday, 4 February, was World Cancer Day. I have the pleasure today of speaking about the efforts of one of my constituents in a national fundraising project for the Australian Cancer Research Foundation.
The effects of cancer are known to all of us. They are devastating to families and to the community. In the last couple of days we have had a condolence motion for Peter Veness, whose life was taken by cancer at a very young age. This brings home to us the effects cancer has on all of us. It weighs heavily also on our health system and it certainly does not discriminate. One in two Australians are now diagnosed with some form of cancer by the age of 85.
My constituent Dee Handyside, who lives in Ormeau, is a proud breast cancer survivor. She emigrated from England to Australia in 2000 and was working as a ranger on Fraser Island when she was diagnosed in 2007. The disease had already claimed the life of her mother, and very quickly her sister and her cousin—both living in England—were also diagnosed.
With family living so far away, Dee came to realise the importance of that most iconic trait that Australians cherish: mateship. During her time being treated for cancer, Dee composed and recorded an album, Genetic, in her spare room at home and in the hospital ward. She turned to genres ranging from motown, jazz, country and R&B. She wrote about the low points, the high points and the cancer journey for other patients and sufferers. The final product is now being distributed for sale in ABC stores around the country. Ten per cent of the proceeds from sales will go to world-class cancer research through the ACRF as part of Dee's commitment to defeating this terrible disease for future generations. The album's release has already been featured on Good Evening America and on ABC Radio. One of the songs on the album is called Thank You Friends. It is a song filled with joy and warmth and it is dedicated to the many friends who helped Dee through her surgeries, treatments and other complications. In the song, Dee refers specifically to a group of breast cancer sufferers and survivors based in Australia and New Zealand who were brought together by an online support forum.
I would like to thank my colleagues who are wearing this lapel badge today to proudly support the Australian Cancer Research Foundation and all the work that Dee and many others are doing.
I rise to express my disgust with plans announced recently by the New South Wales Liberals to dump 100,000 new people into the outer suburbs of Sydney in my electorate. They have announced a plan to call upon developers to come forward and show them the land that they want to develop in parts of outer urban fringes in my electorate in Western Sydney. In particular, they have identified a number of locations in the Penrith area, and this would amount to the establishment of 34,000 new homes in my local community. To put that into some perspective and context, it would amount to somewhere in the order of an extra 100,000 people being housed in my local community. The Penrith area currently has a population of about 180,000 people. That would be, in effect, a 50 per cent increase in our local population at a time when so many families and individuals in my community are angry with the lack of infrastructure that they currently see in their community.
The plan involves 34,000 new homes in suburbs such as Luddenham, Orchard Hills, Wallacia, Kemps Creek and Mount Vernon. This would be 2½ times the number of houses that we currently have in one of our biggest suburbs in the electorate, Glenmore Park. The incoming population that the development of these housing lots would achieve would be in the order of three times the population of the town of Bathurst. I note that the town of Bathurst has its own hospital. I am very interested to know what additional infrastructure is going to be provided to ensure that we have the infrastructure to meet not only our existing demands but also the demands of this incoming population. I note that some of the land that is mooted for development is amongst the richest agricultural lands in the Sydney basin—it is our food bowl—and we want to unleash new housing lots in there. The worst aspect of this plan is that the New South Wales Liberals have said that they will achieve these developments at no cost to the state government. That means one of two things: developers will have to pay the costs and they will pass them onto landowners, increasing the cost of housing; or local ratepayers will have to pay with increased rates.
We should not expect anything other than this. The last time the Liberals came to power in New South Wales they had a proposal called 'the South Creek valley', which was on the same scale, that they wanted to dump in our community. After a concerted community campaign they abandoned their plans, but it was not until the Labor government came into power that we finally shelved that proposal. I am calling upon everyone in my local community to join me in this campaign against this terrible proposal. (Time expired)
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
I rise today to talk on the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The coalition supports the purpose of this bill which is to implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The fact that we need to have this bill is a symbol of the age in which we live where terrorism remains an ever-present threat. That threat occurs from outside the country and, sadly, the threat of home-grown terrorism also exists, and we have seen that in spectacular ways. We have also seen the successes of our security agencies in tackling those threats in recent times. We should never forget that over the last decade many Australians have already lost their lives to terrorist atrocities. The previous coalition government recognised this and we presided over an unprecedented expansion of Australia's capabilities to combat terrorism.
It is very clear to me that, when the Labor Party came to power, they saw this unprecedented expansion of resources and capacity as an over-allocation to the security agencies. They have systematically undermined those agencies and they have systematically decreased the resourcing that is available to them whilst, at the same time, increased their levels of responsibility in a way that will ultimately jeopardise our national security. What these deliberate cuts mean is that our security agencies are being asked to do more with less. The pressures on the security agencies manifest themselves in various ways.
In the most recent budget Labor deliberately again weakened our national security by cutting away $12 million from the National Counter-Terrorism Committee. They also cut $1.4 million from the Australian Federal Police counterterrorism operations. As we know, the most important single weapon in the fight against terrorism is information. Unfortunately through these budget cuts the Gillard Labor government undermined the effectiveness of the Australian counterterrorism effort by thwarting the ability to collect information. We are gravely concerned about the cutbacks to the AFP's counterterrorism program. If this Labor government were serious about preventing terrorism, they would need to commit to appropriately fund the Australian Federal Police's counterterrorism and intelligence programs.
In contrast, the former coalition government provided over $10.4 billion of funding from September 2001 up to the 2010-11 budget to enhance Australia's national security and counterterrorism programs by increasing the capacity of our intelligence agencies. The former Howard government gave ASIO and the AFP significantly more resources and legislative teeth to stay ahead of terrorists and stop them before they acted. The coalition strongly supports our national security and law enforcement agencies and believes they should be resourced appropriately in order to fight this terrible crime. I want to turn to some of the broader cuts beyond the cuts to the intelligence agencies that have occurred to our national security agencies under this Labor government. It really is a litany of shame, and I believe that it is clearly an indicator of Labor's intention when they came to office to stop what they saw as the overallocation of resources to our security apparatus. They have deliberately set out to do this since 2007. Here are just some examples of where they have done this. They have cut $17 million from the air marshals program, which effectively ends the air marshals program. They have cut Australian Federal Police numbers at Darwin and Canberra. They have cut aerial surveillance, unbelievably, as they have presided over the collapse of our orderly border protection system.
They have savaged Customs at every budget, including cutting an enormous sum out of the ability of Customs to screen people as they come over the border as well as to screen cargo as it comes over the border. In the 2009-10 budget, for instance, Labor cut $58.1 million from the ability of Customs to screen cargo when it comes into Australia. What this means, of course, is that the ability for criminals to bring in contraband, and the ability of terrorists to bring in things as well, is enhanced by the fact that Customs is so dramatically under-resourced under this government. The rate at which cargo is screened has dropped dramatically—25 per cent in the case of sea cargo inspections. Astonishingly, there has been a 75 per cent cut in the ability of Customs to inspect baggage as it comes in through our airports. That is an astonishingly large opportunity and opening for criminals, and in the same vein it is an astonishingly large opening for people who might want to bring in weapons or even more diabolical things through our airports, because Customs just do not have the resources they need to do their job properly. Labor have also savaged Customs staffing numbers. Ninety staff were cut from Customs, on top of the cut of 250 that we saw in the 2010-11 budget. They have cut $9.3 million from Customs, apparently in a plan to reduce capital spending. Passenger facilitation, as I mentioned earlier, has had $34 million cut out of it. That means that passengers waiting at Australia's eight international airports wait for longer, and it also reduces Customs' ability to spot threats as they come into the country. Finally, this year's MYEFO estimated that $35 million will be cut from Customs over the forward estimates.
That is just Customs and Border Protection, but all of our national security agencies have been similarly hammered by this government. ASIO had $8.8 million cut from training and liaison. The government also cut almost $7 million worth of ASIO security checks for visa applicants. A sum of $12.1 million was cut over four years for 'operational efficiencies'—which of course is just a euphemism for cutting money—from AUSTRAC, which of course is an agency that is vital in fighting crime, and fighting terrorism in particular, because it tracks the flow of money, which is vitally important to stop these sorts of activities.
I think it is very clear that these cuts represent a very deliberate policy from the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments to stop what they saw as the overallocation of resources to national security. We are very concerned about it. The fact that the budget is in such a perilous situation means that it is going to be difficult for us to reverse that, but we have committed to funding all of those agencies properly. In my own portfolio in particular, we have made specific commitments to reverse some of the cuts that the Labor Party have made to Customs and Border Protection, and that will be vital if we are to go back to a situation where our borders are properly secured in terms of both who comes into this country and what comes into this country.
I turn to the substance of the bill that we are debating. I appreciate that I have been given broad latitude to talk about terrorism in general, whereas this bill really deals with something that is relatively simple in the fight against international terrorism—that is, the ratification by Australia of an international treaty that deals with nuclear terrorist threats. When we think of terrorism, the prospect of nuclear terrorism is possibly one of the most disturbing scenarios that could be imagined by people who are envisaging threats to the Western world and to Australia in particular. Clearly, with the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the ability of terrorists to access nuclear materials was enhanced, and the international community admirably responded with this international treaty that we are discussing in the Australian parliament today. The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee commenced work on the draft International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in 1998. This was born against the backdrop of the postwar discussions I mentioned and the international community being aware of the alarming scenario of nuclear material or nuclear weapons being able to fall into the hands of terrorists. The only existing international convention at the time on nuclear matters was limited to nuclear material used for peaceful purposes and did not deal with nuclear material for military purposes. The United Nations Convention on Nuclear Terrorism was adopted by the general assembly in April 2005 and was opened for signature in September that year. The convention is a multilateral treaty open to ratification by all nations and is designed to criminalise acts of nuclear terrorism and promote judicial and police cooperation in order to prevent, investigate and penalise those acts. The convention includes a wide range of acts and potential targets, which include nuclear power plants and nuclear reactors. It covers threats and attempts to commit such crimes or to participate in them and instructs that offenders will either be extradited or prosecuted. The convention also encourages states to assist each other with criminal investigations and extradition proceedings and by sharing information to prevent terrorist attacks. This bill seeks to implement Australia's obligations under that convention.
As outlined in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the amendments create new criminal offences for possessing or making radioactive material, nuclear explosive devices or a device to emit material with radiological properties which may cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment; using or damaging a convention prescribed device or a nuclear device or threatening to do so; threatening to use radioactive material; or demanding another person create radioactive material, a convention prescribed device or a nuclear facility. Finally, it creates an offence for demanding another person to allow a third person to access or control radioactive material, a convention device or a nuclear facility.
Notably—and I think very importantly—members of the Australian Defence Force will not be liable for prosecution when acting in connection with the defence or security of Australia. The convention does not govern the actions of armed forces during an armed conflict. The exemption does not apply to serving personnel whose actions are not connected with the defence or security of Australia or who have otherwise been acting unlawfully.
It should be noted that the bill does not criminalise the unlawful possession and use of radioactive material—for example, material with a medical application. There must also be an intention to use or make available this material for a prohibited purpose such as death or property damage. Whether or not the intended outcome occurs is not relevant to the prosecution. It also stipulates that a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment applies to the offences created under the bill.
We obviously support, as a coalition and as an opposition, the objective of this bill to implement the United Nations convention. The convention is an important instrument in the international efforts to combat terrorism and the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. We agree that ratifying the convention will send a very strong message to the international community that Australia remains committed to addressing the threat of terrorism. I think there would be very few members of parliament who would object to us ratifying this treaty. In many ways I think that this is the easy end of combating terrorism. The harder end is when it comes to the allocation of scarce resources and when there is a lot of competing pressures on those resources. Clearly, when it comes to those sorts of judgments, this Labor government have been left wanting by the cuts they have made to our national security apparatus, specifically by the cuts they have made against our counterterrorism abilities. I will call on them, in voicing the opposition's support for this particular measure, to look at reversing those cuts. It is something we will certainly do when we are in government.
I rise to speak in support of the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The member for Stirling, who spoke prior to me, raised a number of specific cases with respect to funding allocations for national security and safety. I am certainly not in a position to respond to those comments individually, but I am sure that most of those allegations will be rejected by the minister. In the time that I have been in this place, this government has been absolutely committed to national security and national safety. The government has introduced a number of measures that reflect its commitment in this area. The member for Stirling spent most of his time attacking the government's funding of national security. Again, I have no doubt that the minister will respond to those allegations.
I make the observation, however, that good government is about reflecting the needs of the time. When circumstances change it is not unusual and not irresponsible for the government to change direction in how it manages its affairs. The reality is that if you look at the record of activities that the security organisations of this country have been engaged in, at the record of arrests that have been made and at the general level of safety throughout the country in recent years, you see that those organisations have performed exceptionally well. This government has now been in office for four years. We do not see the security breaches that we might have seen if the system and the various organisations were not working well. So, quite frankly, whilst the member for Stirling came in and attacked the government's record, I think it is a very proud record, which speaks for itself in terms of this government's commitment and its runs on the board in relation to security around Australia.
As other speakers have said, the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill implements the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Minister O'Connor, in introducing the bill in November last year, stated:
The bill creates new offences for specific conduct that is prohibited by the convention.
This includes:
The offences will not be limited to conduct by Australians and in Australia, but will apply in a broad range of situations where the convention requires states parties to assert jurisdiction.
It seems to me that this bill in fact completes part of the process of adhering to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. That convention was concluded in New York on 14 April 2005. The process, however, began nearly a decade earlier, when the United Nations General Assembly established an ad hoc committee through resolution 51/210 on 17 December 1996. It certainly was a lengthy process. Ultimately I can understand the difficulties that might have been encountered by the United Nations in trying to get the convention agreed to by as many countries as possible. It was ultimately signed off on 14 April 2005.
The convention establishes an international framework for criminalising specific conduct relating to nuclear material and other radioactive substances or devices. Australia signed the convention on 14 September 2005, as I understand did several other countries. The convention entered into force generally on 7 July 2007. Of the 115 signatories to the convention, to date 54 have ratified the convention and a further 23 countries have subsequently acceded to it. Australia's ratification of the convention will contribute to international efforts aimed at countering terrorism involving the use of radioactive material. It will ensure that persons who commit such acts can be brought to justice irrespective of the territory in which they are found and whether or not extradition agreements are in place.
The convention provides a framework for international cooperation in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and extradition of persons who commit relevant offences with nuclear material and other radioactive substances or devices. The convention is an important tool in the international fight against terrorism and the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction.
Regrettably, the threat of terrorism has become a fact of life around the world. It is not a new phenomenon. Terrorist acts date back many centuries. The word was originally derived from the French equivalent, which dates back to the reign of terror that followed the French Revolution. In recent decades, however, we have seen widespread acts of terrorism around the world. Most notably for Australians we all remember September 11, 2001, and particularly the Bali bombings of 12 October 2002 when 88 Australians lost their lives along with almost another 120 people—and many others were badly injured. It has changed the way we live, how we do business and even where we may choose to live or visit. The changes we have seen in the operations at airports is a prime example of this. Most importantly, it has added immense financial costs and time to the way we live.
The costs associated with counterterrorist strategies will continue to escalate as new technology creates opportunity not only for good purposes but also for evil purposes. Whilst this bill seeks to strengthen our efforts to counter terrorism, the reality is that countering terrorism will be an ongoing challenge for governments around the world. Again, as this bill very much reflects, it is an international problem and it does require international cooperation if we are going to have any reasonable degree of success in countering the terrorist activities of those who want to engage in them.
Terrorism is not only a product of conflict between two parties, as we quite often imagine, or between two different organisational structures. It is also often a product of a single, crazed person driven by an obsession or by fanaticism. We saw that only last July when 77 young people were killed in Norway as a result of the actions of a person who was clearly deranged and probably still is based on the latest reports I have read about his appearance in the Norwegian courts only recently. So terrorism comes in many forms. That is what makes it so difficult and costly to counter. But every action we take closes another opportunity for terrorism.
The observation I would make about this legislation is that it relates to nuclear terrorism. The word 'nuclear' is synonymous with 'fear' because of the magnitude of the destruction it can cause. It is a valid fear from what we have seen of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from nuclear disasters in Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima. So it is understandable that when you mention the word 'nuclear' or 'uranium' people have some real concerns. The ongoing debates about the ability of countries to enrich uranium, who we sell it to, what it can be used for and how it is to be stored highlights just how sensitive an issue it is.
The other observation I would make with respect to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which this bill seeks to ratify, is that it is an international convention. As I said a moment ago, if we are going to fight terrorism on an international scale we are going to need international cooperation. The convention, as I have pointed out, has been signed by only 115 countries, which means that there are more countries in the world who have not signed it and are not party to the convention than are. That, in my mind, is of real concern because, as we all know, terrorism crosses borders and international boundaries. If a country does not sign the convention you have to immediately ask the question: why not? Why would you not sign something which to 115 countries appears quite reasonable? It is something which took nearly a decade to negotiate in order to ensure it was reasonable, and yet some countries still refuse to sign it. That is of real concern, because our best strategy in fighting terrorism is to have everyone around the world in unison in terms of the way we approach the challenge.
The last thing I want to say is that this bill does in fact strengthen Australia's case when we are endeavouring to encourage other countries in our region to ratify various other counterterrorism instruments. An upcoming opportunity to encourage our neighbours will be the Nuclear Security Summit, which I understand will take place in the Republic of Korea in March this year. Again this is case where, if we are going to encourage others to do the right thing, we have to lead by example. I know we have done that by signing the convention. Particular aspects of this legislation conclude some parts of the convention that we have not yet put into place, and this will certainly enable us as a country and as a government to say to others: 'We are playing our part. We are prepared to be cooperative in an international framework. You should do the same.' I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Last year, the British Home Secretary, Theresa May, told the Washington Council on Foreign Relations that in the fight against extremism:
Success will depend on balancing the near and long term objectives. Repeated tactical success will not of itself assure us of strategic victory. We must extend the rule of law; address the ideological challenge; harness and not be harmed by technology; and preserve our borders in what will surely remain a period of instability.
The Home Secretary's prescription is a very good one. It is one we should share, and I believe we do. Despite the benefits of technology, there are those who would seek to manipulate science and use it against their fellow human beings for their own nefarious and evil purposes. Radical extremists have vowed to go to any lengths in the name of their cause. That includes unleashing biological or nuclear weapons. Amongst them, al-Qaeda and the North Caucasus terror groups have made no secret of the fact that they desire nuclear weapons and have attempted to acquire them. There is evidence that prior to September 11 al-Qaeda operatives cased American nuclear reactor facilities but ruled out sabotage because of the tight security and reinforced fences at those sites.
A decade on, security experts warn that nuclear terrorism remains a real and urgent threat. As more countries embark on their own nuclear programs, this issue must be managed with a watchful eye both at home and abroad. Nuclear material that could be used for weaponry is not inaccessible. Nearly 2,000 metric tonnes of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium separated from spent fuel is stockpiled across the world. It exists in hundreds of buildings and bunkers across more than 30 countries. A quarter of those nations are plagued by corruption and political and financial instability, posing grave concerns over the security of their nuclear reserves. Twenty cases of theft or loss of this material have been recorded by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Other cases have gone unreported. Additional supplies that could be used to make a dirty bomb, like radiological materials used in medicine, can be found at countless other sites.
We do not live our lives in fear, nor do we close our eyes to the world around us. It is critical to be aware of the threats and challenges that face this nation and our allies on the global stage. This bill goes to the heart of the rationale that aims to prevent us from being surprised by the unanticipated and the unimaginable. Last year, researchers from Russia and the United States, two of the world's major nuclear powers, issued a joint assessment warning of the persistent dangers of nuclear terrorism. The joint threat assessment on nuclear terrorism was the product of a year-long partnership between leading authorities on nuclear security from Harvard's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs and the Moscow Institute for US and Canadian studies. The report concludes:
If current approaches toward eliminating the threat are not replaced with a sense of urgency and resolve, the question will become not if but when, and on what scale, the first act of nuclear terrorism occurs.
It named complacency as the primary obstacle to nuclear security. A nuclear attack could take a range of forms. Nuclear weapons could be stolen or acquired on the black market. Perhaps more easily, a crude improvised device or a dirty bomb could be made from stolen materials like uranium or plutonium from spent fuel reserves for civilian research reactors. These scenarios, this study warns, are distressingly plausible.
Sabotaging a nuclear facility is another possibility. I say this as the member for Cook, where the ANSTO facility is in very close proximity to my own residence and those of the neighbouring electorate of Hughes. Thirty countries run reactors that could be potential targets. The report made the point that, whilst Fukushima and Chernobyl were terrible accidents, that same devastation could be triggered by premeditated action.
This report is very grim reading but in order to pre-empt disaster we must consider the worst-case scenarios. To have to contemplate these things is horrific but we do so with the hope that they may never eventuate any further than the dark realms of evil imagination. The assessment argues that, given the potential catastrophic consequences, even a small probability of terrorists getting and detonating a nuclear bomb is enough to justify urgent action to reduce risk. This can be done through tightening the security surrounding nuclear weapons, materials and facilities and expanding intelligence and police operations to foil smuggling and terror plots.
The bill before us today is a vital amendment that moves towards these ends, strengthening the deterrent measures and scope for prosecuting these offences. The convention was a global initiative started by Russia and the United States in 2006. Our Commonwealth legislation already incorporates many of the obligations of the convention. But this bill is important in ensuring that all criminal offences are covered. This amendment will make it a criminal offence to possess, make or use radioactive material or a nuclear emitting or explosive device that can cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; or to threaten to use radioactive material or demand another person create or use such a device or facility.
This bill does not criminalise the lawful use or possession of radioactive material in fields like medicine, but it does allow stronger prosecution when there is intent to use or make that material available for a prohibited purpose. Whether or not the intended outcome is carried out is irrelevant to the prosecution. These new offences carry a maximum penalty of 20 years jail.
Experts say the nuclear material required for an improvised bomb is small and hard to detect, making it difficult to recover once stolen. For that reason the US-Russia joint threat assessment ruled that the primary focus in reducing risk must be to keep nuclear material and nuclear weapons from being stolen by continually improving our security measures.
This stronger legislation is a critical part of that process. The nuclear terrorism convention does not govern the actions of armed forces during conflicts, so members of the Australian Defence Force could not be prosecuted when acting in connection with national defence or security, as is appropriate.
The sobering reality is that it would be plausible for a terror group with technical expertise to make and detonate a crude nuclear bomb if it could acquire the right materials. We need to ensure that that does not happen. These laws today help to serve that purpose.
While we take the measures proposed in this bill and are supportive it is important to remind ourselves of the other dimensions of our task. Last year we commemorated the 10th anniversary of September 11, a cataclysm that shook our world to its very foundations. We have recovered but we will never forget. We have supported our allies in their time of great need and joined the fight and have been the direct victims of terrorist activities ourselves, most notably in Bali. We have drawn strength from the resilience of those who we have stood by—their determination and above all their further commitment to the defence of the democratic values we share. That practical support continues to this day at the cost of Australian lives.
Home-grown terrorism is one of the principal threats facing the United States and the United Kingdom today. In Australia we have been well served by an immigration program that has mitigated these threats more so than most nations, but we must remain vigilant. Australia's immigration program was designed with stringent security tests and character provisions in a bid to safeguard our people and our values. We have sought to consolidate and uphold these provisions as time has passed and contexts have changed. But there is an ever-present need to be watchful. To maintain the integrity of our immigration system we need to adopt a risk based approach to our borders and ensure that our scarce resources are well focused on targeting the threat. The Gillard government's failed border protection policies have compromised these resources and undermined the ability of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to undertake this core task, which is to maintain the integrity of our immigration program.
We must also remember that the friend of home-grown terrorism is cultural exclusion and disengagement. We must have an expectation of participation and engagement with respect to all who live in our society, and society must encourage that participation. In fact, we should insist upon it. We cannot allow a segregationist agenda to take hold under the banner of cultural tolerance. Cultural diversity is an asset for any nation that chooses to embrace it within the framework of shared values, strong borders, the rule of the law and robust institutions. By contrast, cultural division is a curse on any society and is the recruiting ground for extremism and home-grown terrorism.
The US-Russia report reminds us that nuclear terrorism should also be considered within a policy framework of the broader phenomenon of terrorism and extremism. The authors note that Al-Qaeda and other groups draw motivation for the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction from the belief that escalating the conflict by inflicting mass casualties is necessary to win a perceived clash of civilisations between Islam and the West.
We must be very wary of allowing state sponsors of radicalism and extremism to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been significantly undermined by North Korea, the first nation to withdraw from the treaty and test nuclear weapons. The UN Security Council has passed five legally binding resolutions, demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment program, to no effect.
The 2010 report to congress, by the Director of National Intelligence, made the assessment:
Iran probably has the capability to produce some biological warfare agents … for offensive purposes, if it made the decision to do so.
The Middle East and North Africa continue to experience a time of great upheaval. It is an opportunity for renewal, but there is a lurking danger in their present vulnerability.
This is a volatile time—the fall of the Tunisian regime, in January; the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, in February; the death of Gaddafi in Libya; and months of rebel uprisings, airstrikes, bloodshed, protests and violence which gripped Bahrain, Morocco and Algeria. Syria has been suspended from the Arab League, caught in a cycle of violence, as it hurtles down the road to civil war. In the chaos, evil can prosper and our enemies can prevail. We must be ever watchful. The joint threat assessment noted that, whilst al-Qaeda has been drastically disrupted since 2001, there remain very few operatives who would have the skills to organise or orchestrate a nuclear attack. Collaboration with other extremist groups or networks is not out of the question.
There is a chance for these nations to cement fundamental human rights in the societies they rebuild. We cling to the hope that, when the dust settles, a new era can emerge where religious expression and difference is celebrated, not condemned, and the voices of all are heard and valued. However, the experience of the Copts in today's Egypt is not a good omen. Religious extremism, intolerance and hate must not be allowed to fill the vacuum under the guise of superficial democracy where it will consume, destroy and surely spread. We should be careful not to embrace these new regimes and be too eager to appease, as the language of some world leaders could be interpreted, particularly towards the Muslim brotherhood. These regimes could prove to be even more dangerous than the ones they replace, both to their own citizens, to the way of life we in this nation value, to our own nation and its security and those of our allies. We must remain eternally vigilant. The light in our watchtower must never go out.
I also seek to speak on the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill will make essential amendments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 in order to implement Australia's obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism of 2005. The convention aims at establishing an international framework for cooperation for the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and extradition of persons in breach, of offences relating to radioactive or nuclear weapons. While the convention has an international element to it, it requires signatory countries to that convention to address their domestic laws to ensure that they are complementary to those provided within the convention itself. That is essentially what we are doing through this bill.
Australia, as we have heard from previous speakers, has already enacted substantial elements of law set out in the convention within the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987. This bill will fill the gaps to ensure that our legal requirements under the convention and its framework are fully met and, as part of the international organisation of various nations who are signatories to the convention, ensure that our laws are contemporary in that respect.
It is also important, given the role of Australia in terms of our region, that we show leadership on this matter. Complying with the obligations set out in the nuclear terrorism convention will allow us to lead by example within our region, ensuring that other regional neighbours witness our commitment to take steps to comply with the convention and, in doing so, ensure that we have a very strong legal regime set to combat issues of terrorism generally.
New offences will emerge as a consequence of the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill. It will create new offences with respect to possessing, making, using, damaging; threatening a nuclear facility; or a person being forced to use or develop radioactive material for the purposes of weaponry. To put this in context, this is not something where you need an abundance of nuclear physicists and a 20-year lead-up time to develop a nuclear device—as we would generally know it, an atomic bomb. We have the ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights, which is in my neighbouring electorate of Hughes, and we are also fast approaching a debate in this chamber concerning a nuclear waste facility, at a location yet to be determined. There is also our reliance on nuclear medicines for our health. All have a capability of having products used to develop such weapons, for use in terrorism.
As to these new offences, the penalty imposed is up to a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. The application of these laws will apply where an offence is committed within Australia by an Australian citizen or against an Australian citizen, our property or indeed a facility itself. The offence will therefore potentially involve foreigners acting against an Australian citizen or within Australia. As a result, the Extradition Act 1988 will also be amended to prevent a suspect offender from avoiding extradition from Australia by arguing that the offence was of a political nature.
As I indicated, in terms of choice of words, in terms of weaponry, it is not the wholesale production of a nuclear instrument that this legislation is aimed at. Indeed, it would cover that, but that is not its principal target. In the modern age, the prospect of having a dirty nuclear device, which is primarily associated with the disbursement of radioactive material, is something that, whilst very frightening, is very real. It is those devices that are in the forefront of the minds of our security agencies.
In supporting this raft of amendments, we need only look back to September 11. The common view is that it changed the face of the world, and indeed it did. In this place itself, whilst we were not a target in respect of that dreadful attack in the United States, we saw the potential of what it would mean to a country like ours. We enacted various pieces of legislation which some of the critics of this government and of the former government would deride by referring to it as draconian legislation. We took every step possible to ensure that Australia is fully protected against the advent of a terrorism attack. This is another step to ensure that we not only are vigilant but also have in place the tools necessary for those people that we put on the front line, who are out there to protect our community, to ensure that they can properly investigate, prosecute and bring to justice people who would otherwise be free to do what they will in terms of some terrorist ideal in our community.
Clearly I support the provisions outlined in this amendment but, in doing so, I also have regard for all those officers who are working in our law enforcement and security services to protect this nation against the advent of terrorism. It is a long bow to suggest that we have not been a target simply because we have been lucky. I think the reality is that it is because this nation has been vigilant and has not taken things for granted. We will withstand the criticism about deploying draconian legislation, but I think I speak in respect of the parliament generally that all sides will do whatever is necessary to protect our citizenry from terrorist acts.
I commend this piece of legislation to the House. I know it will not be the last in terms of fighting terrorism. Terrorism is something that will push the envelope of our understanding. Simply being able to block it in one aspect does not mean that it will not re-emerge elsewhere. As I say, I have nothing but praise for our people in our respective law enforcement organisations and our security organisations who commit their lives to the protection of this country, and I feel quite humble whenever I am in their presence. I commend the legislation.
I rise today to support the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The bill seeks to add new offences to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 by implementing our obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
I want to record my occasional criticisms of the United Nations conventions and other elements that do not function so well. This of course is a worthwhile initiative of the United Nations, the United States and Russia in supporting nuclear nonproliferation and ensuring that we deal with the very modern challenges of terrorism, particularly in the nuclear domain. It affords me the opportunity to make some remarks on my ongoing interest in matters nuclear: nuclear energy, nuclear waste and how we deal with that and, of course, nuclear terrorism. It is important for us to reflect that in an era when much of our culture deals with matters of nuclear terrorism, whether it be in literature—the latest book I am reading by Tom Clancy, Dead or Alive, deals with a group of terrorists undertaking a nuclear plot in the United States—or whether it be on television shows such as 24 or other programs dealing with the prospect of nuclear terrorism, this cultural reflection is really a snapshot of what people are thinking about and concerned about in today's world.
Following 9/11 something that was previously completely unimaginable became imaginable. And we now know that there are people in our world today who are seeking to do these evil things, including to turn what is a fantastic development in human achievement, science and progress—the splitting of the atom—into something that is negative for humanity.
It is important that we create these categories of offence in Australian law so that we can help to prevent these sorts of acts. Law is one tool, and law enforcement agencies do need these laws to deal with these sorts of crimes. However, if we ever get to the point where these offences are enacted we will have failed. Our law enforcement, terrorism, intelligence and other agencies are at the forefront of fighting people seeking to do these very evil things, and it is very important that we ensure the adequacy of the law in prevention and in enabling these agencies to seek out and prevent these acts before we ever get to the point where we may have to deal with something under the provisions of the bill before us today.
However, it would be remiss of me to talk up the doom and gloom about nuclear problems—considering that we do have a facility in Sydney at Lucas Heights, which is a fantastic achievement in nuclear medicine, and that we are proposing to put a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory—without dealing with some of the pertinent comments from around the world about nuclear energy and its benefits. Looking at what has happened at Fukushima and the scepticism that has come forward about nuclear power generation, it is pertinent to quote just a few things that deal with some of the matters in this bill and, indeed, the general debate about nuclear power today.
I had a quick look at some top environmentalists and other people who are concerned about nuclear power. Even very senior levels of people who have had a view about the nuclear technology suite, whether it be in power generation or other mechanisms, have come to the view that they formed the view wrongly and prematurely. For example, I want to quote Stephen Tindale, who ran Greenpeace for five years until 2005:
My position was necessarily that nuclear power was wrong, partly for the pollution and nuclear waste reasons but primarily because of the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons. My change of mind wasn’t sudden, but gradual over the past four years. But the key moment when I thought that we needed to be extremely serious was when it was reported that the permafrost in Siberia was melting massively, giving up methane, which is a very serious problem for the world. It was kind of like a religious conversion. Being anti-nuclear was an essential part of being an environmentalist for a long time but now that I’m talking to a number of environmentalists about this, it’s actually quite widespread this view that nuclear power is not ideal but it’s better than climate change.
Given that is the view of very senior environmentalists and other people in the world today—
The member for Mitchell is testing my patience with relevance to the bill before me. I have allowed a wide ranging debate, but this is going too far.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you allow me to continue you will be pleasantly surprised. Given that it is—
No. The member for Mitchell will return to the bill.
Given that it is, we will see an increasing number of facilities for nuclear power—particularly in Australia. When countries in Europe, such as France or England, are allowing many mainstream facilities within suburban areas, the prospects and the potential for terrorism will increase. They have increased in Europe and particularly in the United Kingdom. I feel that in Australia today, whether you look at the views of any prominent scientist or environmentalist, the argument for nuclear power and facilities is increasing. The momentum is increasing, and we will see more facilities in Australia in urban areas and in other appropriate areas. I do think that is only a matter of time.
Of course, that means that the prospect for these sorts of illegitimate acts will increase. It is definitely there today in a country like France, where there are dozens and dozens of nuclear power plants. We know that 70 per cent of the UK's power is generated from nuclear sources—allowing for more of this activity to be focused around key targets, and seductive targets, like nuclear facilities. Even in Sydney, this sort of thing has been an issue over the past five years that I have been observing this. Sometimes on the front page of the Daily Telegraph you will see a report about the Lucas Heights facility being an attractive terrorist target—problematically highlighting something that is a legitimate concern to people but also reinforcing to those people who may seek to engage in these acts that there is a target.
This is an important debate, considering that, as a society, we will increasingly be looking at nuclear as a solution to our energy generation and medical problems. The provisions in this bill are legitimate in the sense that they exempt the Australian defence forces from activities on the battlefield and do not involve any legitimate use of the defence forces in areas where they may have responsibility for nuclear materials. The conventions and the criminal offences are substantial and useful in terms of us making a case about the United Nations convention being a valuable mechanism, and the penalty of 20 years is a legitimate penalty.
It is also important to note that there are countries pursuing nuclear technology for the purposes of employing nuclear weapons, including countries such as Iran, most notably in recent times. The member for Cook spoke about the recent United Nations Security Council resolution that was not supported by China and Russia. One of the disappointing features of that was that Syria was seeking to supply Iran with low-grade nuclear spent fuel and other mechanisms to help them develop nuclear weapons—which of course is the other side of the nuclear terrorism debate. There are also nation states, particularly totalitarian regimes, that seek to develop nuclear weapons for the purposes of nuclear terrorism employed by the state and not by an isolated group seeking to cause terrorism in our country.
This is appropriate legislation. This bill will be helpful to law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies. It is a reactive mechanism but it is important to note in law that it is an offence to do these things. I do not see many instances of people being charged with the lawful possession of radioactive materials or other things. If we ever get a situation where someone is prosecuted for this, we have a much broader problem. I continue to support the government's efforts to proactively give intelligence and law enforcement agencies powers to find people who seek to do evil things and to prevent them from doing so. This is a worthwhile United Nations convention. The United States and Russia are to be commended for developing it, and it is a worthwhile bill for this parliament to adopt.
Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, I am not sure I have had a chance to congratulate you on your ascension back to that role. Anyhow, congratulations. I rise to support these amendments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 and the Extradition Act 1988. They are designed to correct a peculiarity in the current Australian law where certain illegal acts relating to acts by Australians against Australians within Australia involving nuclear terrorism are at this moment not covered by the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism to which Australia is a signatory. The current amendments have my full support. I have remembered that just a couple of years ago, nearby to Australia, some totally irresponsible person was arrested with several kilograms of caesium 137 in Bangkok. So the danger marches closer to us. I cannot believe that a person, for commercial purposes or for greed for money, would enter into such a prospect. But, apparently, there are such people in this world and that is why this kind of legislation is necessary. Nuclear terrorism, the prospect of which I have spoken about in this House, is potentially the gravest threat at the moment in the Middle East and, by inevitable extension, to the world, whether it is the development of nuclear weapons or, God forbid, a nuclear exchange or, as many people in this House have spoken about, the smuggling of dirty bombs and the use of them by terrorists within Australia. I refer to the most recent findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency in its report of November 2011, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran, wherein the agency, in the exquisite language of international diplomacy, states that:
This report focuses on those areas where Iran has not fully implemented its binding obligations, as the full implementation of these obligations is needed to establish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
In this most recent report, in summary, the IAEA says that Iran has not suspended its nuclear enrichment related activities in, amongst others, the Natanz fuel enrichment plant and the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, located near the city of Qom, or suspended work in heavy water related projects. Iran has declared to the agency 15 nuclear facilities in nine locations outside nuclear facilities where nuclear material is customarily used and the United Nations agency responsible for monitoring these kinds of things still awaits a substantive response in relation to announcements made by Iran concerning the construction of a further 10 new uranium enrichment facilities.
Most disturbingly, the agency reports it has become concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the agency has regularly received new information. Information that also serves as a basis for the agency's analysis and concerns comes from a variety of independent sources, including IAEA member states, the agency's own efforts and information provided by Iran itself. The information indicates Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of nuclear weapons. This is not a peaceful nuclear program. The official international UN agency is looking at issues beyond what would otherwise be a legitimate Bushehr nuclear reactor provided by the Russians to the Iranians apparently for nuclear power.
The IAEA has identified the following military related activities of Iran on nuclear power: efforts to procure nuclear related and dual-use equipment and materials by related individuals and entities—and I am very proud that the Australian government has on four occasions intercepted, as then Minister for Defence Faulkner revealed, dual-use items sought by Tehran for its program; efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material; acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network; and work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon, including the testing of components. While some of these activities identified by the agency have civil as well as military applications, others, most disturbingly and threateningly, are specific to nuclear weapons.
The President of the United States' adviser Matthew Kroenig senior in last weekend's Financial Review said that the IAEA has identified that Iran was testing nuclear triggering devices and redesigning its missiles to carry nuclear payloads. That is very ominous advice from Matthew Kroenig, who has just retired as an adviser to the President of United States. He was the President's adviser from July 2010 to July 2011 and so he has the latest information. I commend his very alarming article in the centre pages of the Financial Review to members of the House. In summary, the International Atomic Energy Agency now reports that it will not be in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, specifically to nuclear weapons, unless and until Iran provides the necessary cooperation with the agency. Recently I had the opportunity to sit down for an extensive period of time with Russia's very cosmopolitan foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Sydney. While I do not agree with many of his country's policy prescriptions on Syria and Iran, he did make the very sound point that the international community must at all costs keep the IAEA inspectors in Iran. The moment they are forced to leave is the moment for the international community to go to DEFCON 1, as the Iranians will be able to take their 20 per cent enriched uranium to 90 per cent within a very short period of time. I commend Mr Putin's and Russia's responsible posture in refusing to supply advanced missile defence to the Iranians.
One of the key things in understanding the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the possible provision of dirty bombs, even if not in the form of a nuclear weapon or a nuclear missile, is the nature of the Iranian regime. We all know that Persia was a great civilisation and that the Persian culture is a great civilisation. We all know that that regime stole an election from its own people more than just a year ago. The Iranian regime has a defence minister who has an indictment against him by the Argentinean Attorney-General for blowing up a civilian centre in Buenos Aires in the 1980s where more than 70 people were killed. It has recently been accused by the government of the United States of trying to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington.
I want to draw attention today to the latest of its grave behaviour, given the heightened tensions in that part of the world. It shows you the kind of people we are dealing with and the outlaw nature of this regime that would, in my view, provide dirty bombs to terrorists if it thought it could get away with it, even into a place like Australia. The conservative Alef site, just yesterday, in Tehran published a doctrine detailing why the destruction of a nation and the slaughter of all of its people would be legally and morally justified. The site gave jurisprudential justification for Iran's Islamic government to take the helm on these kinds of issues and to prosecute such a policy. The article was written by Khamenei's strategy specialist, Alireza Forghani, and is now being run, as we speak, on most state owned websites in Iran indicating the regime's support. My goodness me; what kind of a country is it where the government officially says that on its own websites? It indicates the nature of the people whom we are dealing with. Of course, this demeans and humiliates the great civilisation of Persia, which all of us are familiar with. When we meet Persians overseas they shake their heads with embarrassment at the kind of regime that is running things there at the moment.
It informs me—and I think it should inform all members of the House—about the nature of regimes. It does not disturb me at all that Australia provides uranium to India, China—with whom I certainly disagree on its foreign policy—or Japan, because these countries are essentially peaceful. They do not threaten anyone. We realise, of course, that there are grave issues with nuclear safety, which arose out of Fukushima. But it is the nature of regimes that we should look at—regimes that have these materials and have the possibility of providing dirty bombs to people with nuclear material. They are a threat to our citizens as well.
I also draw the attention of this House to the article, which I think all members should read, in the December issue of the Atlantic, which points out that, in order to prevent American surveillance of where its nuclear weapons are, the government of Pakistan is now driving these weapons around in delivery trucks through the crowded streets of Lahore, Rawalpindi and other cities in Pakistan. However crazy that policy sounds, it is a danger to citizens of the world. Surely one of the bad guys in Waziristan could drive one of their pickup trucks down to Rawalpindi, Dhaka or some place like that and intercept one of these government delivery trucks that are not safeguarded by the Pakistani military or supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency. They could just pick one of them up. What a danger that would be to the people of the world. The provision of dirty bombs to terrorists is a real issue. It is brought very closely to mind by the incident that I cited at the beginning of my speech, in which a man was arrested in Bangkok several years ago carrying several kilograms of polonium. This is timely legislation. Both sides of parliament are showing their responsibility to the Australian people by supporting it.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. There is no doubt that, as the member for Melbourne Ports said, this bill has bipartisan support. The coalition certainly backs this and we see the reason why. Out in the world, there has been recognition of the need to deal with these sorts of issues. With this bill, we see the implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. We in this country have always been very clear on this and have been very supportive of keeping these sorts of problems away from our own shores and working as part of the world community to make sure that the world is as safe a place as absolutely possible. So, yes, we certainly welcome this bill.
The world is a risky place. There is instability out there. There are countries and nations, there are organisations and there are political groups in this world that are not very positive and which pose a risk, whether that risk is through an intention or threats to commit harm or whether it is through corruption or at any point poor security. Where nuclear weapons and nuclear capacities are involved security and a lack of corruption is required. We must acknowledge that threat, so it is right and proper that this country adopts this bill and works as part of the world community to do as much as it can about nuclear terrorism. We support the measures contained in this amendment, because we do live in a dangerous world. There are threats posed by states and non-state actors. The threats are posed not solely by ideologies or Islamists but also by even older concepts such as the sheer pursuit of power.
The member for Melbourne Ports spoke quite extensively about Iran. I think that when we talk about nuclear threats to the world Iran figures prominently. It would be wrong to speak on this matter and not raise the issue of nuclear proliferation, because it remains a relevant point. In particular, with regard to the impending nuclear power Iran, much has been said about the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, it is right that we acknowledge the threat that the leaders of that power present. We know that Iran is a Shiah majority nation. Iranians are not, however, Arabs. As a result, Iran does struggle for wider credibility in the Arab Middle East. Its task is made more difficult because it has few natural Shiah friends. Currently, it has Syria, although perhaps that friend will not last much longer. We should keep in mind that the quick fall of the Syrian government and President Assad are highly desirable, but what is also desirable and required is that, unlike the concept of the Arab spring, which has proved to be an illusion with regard to democracy, in any fall of the Syrian regime liberal democracy needs to be promoted and that there has to be very hard work to promote it. This is unlike Egypt, where we saw a flicker of liberal democracy—but that was snuffed out fairly quickly by the highly organised Islamists represented by the Muslim Brotherhood.
The threat in Syria, as in many places in the Middle East, is that one regime can be easily replaced by an Islamist regime and that is certainly not a step forward, and provides no benefit and no security for those in the region. With regard to the relationship between Iran and Syria, there is no doubt that the fall of Syria would be a massive defeat for Iran. I think we should desire that as a good outcome. The Iranians do have some friends in the Middle East. They have the support of Syria and supply from Syria. They also have friends in Lebanon, the Hezbollah, whom they help to supply with weapons, and that other well-known terrorist organisation, Hamas, in the Gaza Strip. Apart from those limited friends, the other nations in the Middle East are predominantly the Sunni Muslims and they are Arabs.
It is well-known that Iran desires to lead the Muslim world. Iran pursues that leadership and pursues concepts such as the world caliphate, uniting all the world under Shiah Islam and the return of the Mahdi to exact justice on the world at the end of time. These are concepts that they talk about. To achieve that leadership, they are pursuing an anti-Israel agenda to get publicity and credibility with Arab nations in the Middle East, and they seek a nuclear warhead to match the delivery systems they already possess. They seek leadership in the Muslim world through power and the threat of a nuclear missile that will, they believe, allow them to control the sea lanes of the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz.
It is certainly my view that Iran is likely in the next 12 months to develop nuclear weapons and be able to deploy them. It is wise to be aware of this, particularly in the case of the United States and Israel. Consideration should be given to what action should be taken to address this threat. It is also my view that a nuclear armed Iran is unlikely to be able to be negotiated with and the stability of the gulf and its shipping would most definitely be threatened. Furthermore, an emboldened nuclear Iran may well feel that proliferation of nuclear capacity to its friends may also further its leadership in the wider Islamic world. Certainly in the near future, barring action from the US or Israel, the threat of nuclear terrorism will become increasingly likely.
From an international perspective, the pursuit by the current regime in Iran of hegemony in the Middle East, their pursuit of leadership of other countries, is most definitely their agenda and through nuclear weapons we can see that agenda being progressed. They are not a reliable member of the international community. They are not a safe or even, in my view, mentally stable organisation. If they seek to negotiate, we can only acknowledge that as a means to delay. If they want to talk it is a means to delay and take advantage of the turn-the-other-cheek mentality of the Western world, giving them more time before they are called to account.
Israel certainly understands that threat and they understand the time frame. I think the United States is a little too optimistic and is prepared to let these time frames slip out to 18 months or even a couple of years, during which action may be required. In my view and from the information that I have received, the crunch time for this issue is going to be within the next 12 months. That is a difficult issue, obviously, for the world. I believe the steps that are required will need to be taken within 12 months. That is scary. That will be a little bit difficult, but we should stand by our friends and realise that what will need to be done will need to be done and that we should be on the right side. In the end, what will happen in the Middle East if Iran gets this sort of leadership position or this sort of power position is not the sort of thing we want to contemplate. I believe that action will be required in the future.
We also know there are some radical views out there. Already Iran has been more than happy to support and back the worst sort of people—as I mentioned before, Hamas and Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. We can easily see that that sort of attitude towards the terrorists in the Middle East can be expanded to other parts of the world. You might well see the regime in Iran, if they do achieve that success in the Middle East and in the gulf, reach out to the radical Islamists in Indonesia. That is very much on our doorstep. It is something that we need to think about and realise that action is going to be required on. I have talked mainly in a broader global sense with regard—
I was going to mention that, when you are talking about a bill, occasionally referring to the bill does help the chair.
I acknowledge that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I intend to be more constructive on the bill from here. I said that the influence of an emboldened Iran may come into South-East Asia. We know that already in Australia there are those who have travelled overseas to undertake terrorist training through Yemen. Last year I referred to some 55 people who are unaccounted for, having gone through Yemen, and who are suspected of being involved with terrorist training. An Australian citizen who is going to travel overseas for that sort of training, might well think involvement with the regime in Iran or its agents would be in their best interests and would further the pursuit of their objectives. When we look at the home-grown terrorist concerns within this country, we need to be mindful that the geopolitical influences of emerging nuclear powers might well be able to influence to some degree inside Australia as well.
As the member for Cook said earlier in his contribution on this bill—and I certainly agree with this—we need to be very careful about the way parallel societies could exist in Australia under the guise of cultural identity. I know that maintenance of a person's culture from their homeland is an important thing and it gives strength to people as they come to adjust and integrate into Australia. When we have places, countries, states and non-state players out there in the world seeking to take advantage of those who might feel disaffected or detached from Western liberal societies then we do need to think about that and we do need to think about making sure those ethnic or religious groups in Australia—
The member for Cowan told me he was going to get back to the legislation. About now would be a really good time to do it.
I think that the bill is about access to radioactive materials or devices, and the ability to reach out to disaffected groups within Australia by those people who have access to devices and nuclear materials is exactly the sort of link we need to consider—the fact that there might be those out there in the world who offer the capacity to those inside the country who want that capacity and are prepared to utilise that capacity. That is the point I was trying to make. We should be very careful. Those groups that might want to maintain their language and culture to the exclusion of English and the positive traditions of the last two centuries might seek to lock in their isolation from the mainstream and from the opportunities our nation offers. That would be a disservice to Australians of ethnic origins and to our country. Without a doubt the coalition supports this bill. Obviously we need to be vigilant here in Australia and we need to give due consideration to what is happening around the world.
I rise to speak in support of the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I would like to support the words of the member for Melbourne Ports, the member for Cowan and the other speakers who have contributed on this bill. This bill implements the provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism by adding new offences to Australia's Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987. The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism details offences relating to unlawful and intentional possession and use of radioactive materials or a radioactive device, or the use or damage of nuclear facilities. It is designed to promote cooperation amongst nations through the sharing of information and the providing of assistance for investigations and extraditions. The convention entered into force in July 2007 and requires all party states to make every effort to adopt appropriate measures to ensure the protection of radioactive material, taking into account relevant recommendations and functions of the agency. Originally proposed by Russia, the convention was first adopted on 13 April 2005 with the ultimate intention of protecting against attacks on a range of targets, including nuclear power plants and reactors. The bill creates new criminal offences, including possessing radioactive material or a convention device; making a convention device using radioactive material; using or damaging a convention device or a nuclear facility; threatening to use radioactive material; threatening to use or damage a convention device or a nuclear facility; demanding another person create radioactive material, a convention device or a nuclear facility; and demanding another person allow a third person to access or control radioactive material, a convention device or a nuclear facility.
It would be nice to live in a world where such legislation was not necessary, but Edmund Burke's words from 1790 remind us 'There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.' Just before Christmas we had an important reminder of Edmund Burke's words and that the threat of terrorism in Australia is ever present when three Muslim extremists were convicted by the Supreme Court of Victoria for conspiring to plan a terrorist attack in the electorate of Hughes, which I represent. Each were sentenced to 18 years jail. The aim of these home-grown terrorists, members of an Islamic terrorist cell who had all met in a Preston mosque, was to enter the Holsworthy Barracks armed with military weapons and shoot 500 personnel or as many people as they possibly could before they were killed themselves or ran out of ammunition. The Holsworthy Barracks is more than just a military establishment. It has a history going back almost 100 years and it is the place where the families and friends of our defence personnel often gather to attend parades and ceremonies. Holsworthy railway station, a station used by several thousand commuters every day, sits on the boundary of the Holsworthy Barracks. Thankfully this planned terrorist attack in Sydney's south-west was thwarted when police arrested four suspected plotters before they had a chance to enact their plans.
To those anonymous heroes involved in what was known as Operation Neath—the joint investigation by the AFP, the Victorian Police, the New South Wales Police, the New South Wales Crime Commission and ASIO, who were supported by other agencies including the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—whose work was responsible for foiling this terrorist plot in Sydney's south-west, we cannot thank you enough for your professionalism, for your dedication to duty and for getting the job done. In handing down the 18-year jail sentences, Justice King told the court that she had a duty to protect the community, given that none of the accused had shown any remorse for a terror plot she described as an evil. Her Honour further said:
Your intentions and your plans were deadly serious. It was to kill as many personnel that could be found on the army base at Holsworthy in the time prior to yourselves being killed as martyrs …
She also noted:
… despite being given the opportunity, none of the trio had recanted their extremist views.
At the trial the court also heard that the three had expressed hatred of Australian people, whom they repeatedly referred to as 'infidels'. One of the convicted was even recorded as celebrating the death toll of the Black Saturday bushfires, saying it brought retribution to Australia.
Of the three convicted terrorists, one was born in Somalia and one in Lebanon. How such individuals are accepted into Australia as migrants remains a mystery and demonstrates that we must give our migration authorities all the resources that they require to undertake vigorous background checks of prospective migrants to ensure that they share our beliefs in human rights, liberty, inclusion, diversity and equal rights for women and, above all, that they are prepared to have a commitment and loyalty to the Australian nation above any other belief. The third convicted terrorist was, amazingly, an Australian-born citizen of Lebanese refugee parents.
Rightfully, Justice King said their disloyalty towards their adopted country was shameful. She said:
The fact that Australia nurtured you and your families is something that should cause you all to hang your heads in shame, that this was the way you planned to show your thanks for that support.
Your views about Australia and Australians, and your attitude towards the country's armed forces, its civilians and its government were clear. Your plans were evil.
But, unfortunately, this was not a one-off event. As the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, David Irvine, recently pointed out:
... Of the 38 people recently prosecuted for terrorism-related offences in Australia, 37 were Australian citizens and 34 were either born here or lived here since childhood.
Clearly, home-grown terrorism is a threat in Australia. Although we rightfully celebrate our multicultural society as one of our nation's greater strengths, it is also a warning sign that not all is well. We cannot bury our heads in the sand to this growing problem. If we are to avoid creating a divided and dysfunctional society, multiculturalism must be a policy for the whole of society to adopt and it must not be a policy which encourages the growth of a series of various monocultures developing in certain suburbs in a major city.
The threat or the use of nuclear weapons has been of paramount concern for governments for more than 60 years. While the threats of the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union have all but diminished there still remains the threat from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran. In addition, the threat of nuclear terrorism is real. It is well known that al-Qaeda has attempted to acquire nuclear materials, either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. The possibility of future terrorist activities using nuclear devices must be a concern for all governments, including the Australian government, and it must be one we are prepared to confront.
Preventing these terrorist acts and deterring those who might seek to commit them requires full international cooperation. The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism is one way of fostering this international cooperation. This bill demonstrates Australia's commitment to ratifying this international counterterrorism instrument as an integral part of strengthening its legal framework to fight terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which will give effect to our obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This will create new criminal offences for (1) possessing or making radioactive material, nuclear explosive devices or a device to emit material with radiological properties which may cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment; (2) using or damaging a convention prescribed device or nuclear facility or threatening to do so; (3) threatening to use radioactive material; (4) demanding another person create radioactive material, a convention prescribed device or a nuclear facility; and (5) demanding another person allow a third person to access or control radioactive material, a convention prescribed device or a nuclear facility.
Importantly, offences under this bill include serious penalties, up to 20 years imprisonment. Members of our Australian Defence Force will not be liable for prosecution under this convention, when acting in connection with the defence and security of Australia, nor does this convention cover actions of the armed forces during armed conflict.
Like my colleague and friend who spoke before me, the member for Hughes, I subscribe to the view that nuclear terrorism is our greatest security threat. One of the foremost authorities on this topic is Professor Graham Allison, a former US Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration. He is now Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, where I was a student and where I got to know Professor Allison well.
Professor Allison sees the nuclear threat as being entirely possible and points to the findings of a bipartisan United States Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism, which found:
… it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013 …
Professor Allison and this bipartisan congressional commission are not the only ones to point to the seriousness of this threat. President Obama has said that nuclear terrorism is the single most important national security threat that we face and, in his first speech as President to the United Nation's Security Council, he said:
Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city—be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris—could kill hundreds of thousands of people.
And it would badly destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life.
Former United States CIA Director, George Tenet, said, 'The main threat is a nuclear one. I am convinced that this is where Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and his operatives desperately want to go.' Former US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, said that, 'It's the thought of a terrorist ending up with weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear' that keeps him up at night. Indeed, we were given a glimpse into the causes for this deep concern expressed by the leaders of the United States's military and security establishment through the WikiLeaks revelations, which referred to some of the files of those captured in Guantanamo. The United Kingdom's Telegraph newspaper, in its reporting of these WikiLeaks reports, said:
A senior Al-Qaeda commander claimed that the terrorist group has hidden a nuclear bomb in Europe which will be detonated if Bin-Laden is ever caught or assassinated. The US authorities uncovered numerous attempts by Al-Qaeda to obtain nuclear materials and fear that terrorists have already bought uranium. Sheikh Mohammed told interrogators that Al-Qaeda would unleash a "nuclear hellstorm".
It went on to say:
Terrorists also plotted major chemical and biological attacks against this country.
Professor Graham Allison believes that, despite the reality and pervasiveness of this threat, Americans are 'paralyzed by a combination of denial and fatalism'—that if it has not happened, it will not, or, if it does happen, we can do nothing to stop it. The truth is: we can. We can do something to mitigate this threat, to stop such an atrocity ever happening. We can strengthen our intelligence agencies, as the Howard government did—and I was proud to be involved in that process, supporting ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, when I was in the office of Prime Minister John Howard. We can strengthen our legislative processes, which is part of the bill before us. We can attract the best people. We can share information with our friends and our allies in order to get the best result. There is a way forward.
But there is a reality that we all have to face, and that is: in Australia the terrorist threat is ever so real. In a very important speech to the Sydney Institute, David Irvine, who is the head of ASIO, revealed exactly the depths of today's threat. He pointed out that over 100 Australians have been killed in terrorist attacks overseas since 9-11, and he said that he did not share the view that the terrorist threat is either over exaggerated or that it just happens in another country. In fact, David Irvine, who is one of our finest diplomats—he had been our ambassador in China and heavily involved in security issues—has said that, in Australia, 23 individuals in recent years have been handed very heavy penalties for terrorist attacks, and he said in his speech:
It is worth reading the sentencing statements of the Australian judges to get an idea of the seriousness with which they viewed the offences—and the likely consequences had they been successful.
David Irvine went on to say:
ASIO continues to conduct several hundred counter-terrorism investigations and inquiries ranging from Australians in contact with terrorists off-shore, including al-Qa’ida, to possible threats to Australian interests or Australian lives from extremist activity, either on or off-shore.
He went on to say:
Within the Australian environment, we are seeing a worrying trend of “home grown terrorism”. This is not an abstract or an offshore threat; it is real and it is amongst us—
worryingly, too—
we are continuing to see a number of Australians seeking to travel overseas for participation in—or facilitation of—terrorism-related activities. My concern is that such people may target innocent people overseas, assist those who would do harm to our nation, or might return to Australia with a greater knowledge, training and intent to carry out an act of terrorism back home.
These are very profound, disturbing and important words. We can do something to stop the terrorist threat. We can do something to stop the nuclear threat. The first thing we can do is stop countries with existing nuclear capacity, like Pakistan and North Korea, proliferating their technology and their capacity to other countries. The second thing we can do is stop countries that currently do not have a nuclear device, like Iran, Syria and Burma, from ever getting one. The third is that we can tackle terrorism with a robust security framework and our deep alliances with our neighbours and friends, and the fourth is that we can introduce tough legislation that actually makes it an offence to do the types of activities that I have outlined today.
The Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 is an important part of our arsenal. It is an important part of Australia's defence. I support it unequivocally, and so do my many colleagues on the coalition side.
I also rise to speak on the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. As my colleagues have already stated, the coalition does support this bill. According to the Bills Digestthe purpose of the bill is to:
... implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism 2005 (the Convention) by creating new offences for criminal conduct relating to nuclear material and other radioactive substances or devices prohibited by the Convention.
The Bill also amends the Extradition Act 1988 to ensure the new offences will not be regarded as political offences for the purposes of extradition.
As set out in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the amendments proposed by the bill create new offences for possessing radioactive material for a nuclear explosive device or a device to emit material with radiological properties which may cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment; making a convention device; using a damaging convention device or a nuclear facility or threatening to do so; demanding another person create radioactive material, a convention device or a nuclear facility; and demanding another person allow a third person to access or control radioactive material, a convention device or nuclear facility.
Under these amendments, Australian Defence Force members will not be prosecuted when acting in connection with the defence or security of Australia. The convention does not govern the actions of armed forces during an armed conflict. However, this exemption does not apply if any serving member's actions are not connected with the defence or security of Australia or if they are otherwise acting unlawfully. Also of note is that the bill does not criminalise the lawful possession and use of radioactive materials if, for example, it is being used for medical applications. There must, however, be an intention to use or make available the material for a prohibited purpose, such as death or property damage.
In terms of prosecution, whether or not the intended outcome occurs is not relevant to a prosecution and there is a maximum penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for the new offences created by this bill. In terms of committee considerations of the bill, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties expressed its support for the convention and, ultimately, recommended that the binding treaty action be taken. The committee stated that ratification would:
... contribute to international efforts aimed at countering terrorism involving the use of radioactive material. It will ensure that persons who commit such acts can be brought to justice irrespective of the territory in which they are found and whether or not extradition agreements are in place.
Those were just two of the compelling reasons why the committee supported Australia undertaking the proposed binding treaty action. The committee further commented that implementing legislation would 'further strengthen Australia's strong counter-terrorism legislative framework', that the ratification would 'send a message to the international community demonstrating Australia's continued commitment to addressing the threat of terrorism' and that it would 'strengthen Australia's case in encouraging regional countries to ratify the 16 international counterterrorism instruments'.
The committee also made comment on the inordinate length of time between the signing of the treaty in September 2005 and the tabling of it in parliament. I also consider it quite extraordinary that it has taken six years to table this treaty in parliament given the importance of antiterrorism measures and, in particular, the concerns about nuclear terrorism activities. The background to the United Nations convention dates back to when the UN Ad Hoc Committee commenced work on the draft International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in 1998. History shows that, at the time, the only existing international convention on nuclear matters was limited to nuclear material which was being used for peaceful purposes. In April 2005 the general assembly adopted the UN's Convention on Nuclear Terrorism. Some five months later, in September of that year, it was open for signing.
As stated by the member for Stirling and others, the convention is a multilateral treaty open to ratification by all nations and is designed to criminalise acts of nuclear terrorism and to promote judicial and police cooperation in order to prevent, investigate and penalise those acts. It includes a wide range of acts and potential targets, which include nuclear power plants and nuclear reactors. I am sure everyone agrees that the convention is an important instrument in the international effort to combat terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction. The convention includes threats and attempts to commit crimes or to participate in them and instructs that offenders will be either extradited or prosecuted. The convention also encourages assistance between each other with criminal investigations and extradition proceedings by sharing information so as to prevent terrorist attacks.
On terrorism, others have already stated that the coalition genuinely supports counterterrorism measures which include nuclear terrorism measures in Australia and abroad. I am not sure why the Gillard Labor government does not place the same emphasis on national security as we do. I would have thought that if it did it would ensure that our national security agencies are resourced appropriately to enable them to focus on international and home-grown terrorism. If the Gillard Labor government were serious about ensuring that our national security agencies were appropriately resourced, why did it cut $12 million from the National Counter Terrorism Committee in the 2011-12 budget? And why did it cut $1.4 million from the AFP's counterterrorism operations? At a time when people do not feel our borders are safe and are worried about terrorism, at a time when people do not think they can trust the Gillard Labor government, why does the government cut national security agency funding?
As already stated by the member for Stirling, we all know that the most important weapon in the fight against terrorism is information, and unfortunately the Gillard Labor government just cannot be trusted to ensure that our national security agencies and the AFP have the intelligence-gathering powers they need to identify preparation and planning for terrorist acts so as to stop them before they are carried out. Like other members of the coalition, I am deeply concerned by Labor's cutbacks to the AFP's counterterrorism program. To prevent terrorism you do not cut back funding; you ensure that the programs are appropriately funded. And that is what Labor has to do. Labor needs to commit appropriate funds to the AFP's counterterrorism and intelligence programs.
When the coalition was in government the contrast was clear, as it provided over $10.4 billion of funding from September 2001. This was to enhance Australia's national security and counterterrorism programs by increasing the capacity of our intelligence agencies. As we heard from the member for Kooyong, the former Howard government provided ASIO and the AFP with more resources and legislative support, which ensured that they had the resources that enabled them to stay ahead of the game and to stop terrorist activity before it occurred. History shows us that the coalition strongly supported our national security and law enforcement agencies. This support is strong today. It is essential that these agencies be resourced appropriately so they can do their job—that is, to fight crime effectively.
In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, the coalition supports the intention of this bill to implement provisions of the UN convention. As already stated by my colleague and friend the member for Stirling, the coalition agrees that ratifying this convention will send a strong message to the international community that Australia is committed to addressing the threat of terrorism.
I rise to lend some comment to the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I precede my remarks by saying that the coalition intends to support the bill. There are a number of worthy aspects to it. It seeks to add new offences to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987. This will be accomplished by implementing the new provisions outlined in the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, otherwise known as the nuclear terrorism convention. It is a multilateral treaty, which of course makes it open for each nation to ratify. It is designed to promote judicial and constabulary cooperation in order to prevent, investigate and penalise criminal acts in relation to the convention's intended purpose.
As some in the chamber would be aware, Commonwealth legislation already implements most of our obligations under the nuclear terrorism convention. This bill seeks to ensure that all criminal offences specified in article 2 of the convention are appropriately covered by the application of Commonwealth legislation.
The amendments contained in the bill create new offences for possessing radioactive material or a device considered under the convention to be a nuclear explosive device that would emit radiological material that may cause death or serious bodily harm or damage to property or the environment; making such a device as prescribed under the convention; using or damaging such a device, including threatening to do so; demanding another person create radioactive materials, devices or nuclear facilities; and demanding a person allow a third party to access or control such facilities, devices or materials.
The bill stipulates with regard to these offences that there must be an intention to use or make available the material for prohibited purposes. There is a suitable penalty—20 years imprisonment—that applies to offences created by this bill. However the bill does not criminalise the lawful possession and use of radioactive material. The importance of the use of radioactive material in the form of isotopes is known by all those involved in medicine and by those who have been the recipients of some of the great advances in medicine. It is also apparently contained in household smoke alarms, which gives me a whole new perspective on accessing smoke alarms, I can tell you.
It is important to note that there are also provisions that protect Australian Defence Force, ADF , personnel from prosecution when they act in accordance with the duties normally required of them and in the defence of the nation's interests. This is in line with the n uclear t errorism c onvention , which itself does not govern the actions of armed forces during armed conflict. Naturally, th e exemption does not apply to Australia's military forces if their activities are not related to their duties and to their work in securing Australia's national interests. Quite simply, if you are a soldier, sailor or airman or airwoman and you are acting unlawfully, then you will be liable for persecution under the terms of the bill, as you should be for any unlawful activity. It is a sensible measure, and I personally support it as the shadow minister for defence personnel, science and technology. It is important to reiterate that this bill specifically precludes ADF members from being liable for prosecution when undertaking what can broadly be termed as their normal working duties. It is sensible and it ensures our defence personnel are provided with the legal protection they need when carrying out lawful general orders in the prosecution of armed combat.
We support the bill. It makes measurable sense. The protections provided for military personnel are sound. If we cast our eye to the possible use of nuclear material within terrorism in general, we start to get a feel for why measures such as this are needed. According to the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System, a database run by the National Counterterrorism Cent e r in the United States , as at the end of October 2010 there ha d been 17,833 separate terrorist attacks across the world perpetrated by Islamic extremists . This is an inordinate number of terrorist attacks since September 11—something like 1,300 per year or four per day.
Furthermore, i n their report for 2009 the National Counterterrorism Cente r stated that there had been 299 suicide bombing attacks in 2009 in 13 countries. We should probably more rightly call them 'homicide' attacks, because suicide bombers are not seeking to kill themselves; they are seeking to use maximum bloody force to destroy as many people as possible in the closest possible circumstances. There were 299 suicide bombing attacks in 2009 alone in 13 countries. There appear to be more Mumbai-style attacks as terrorist organisations continually adapt. We see that in the prosecution of combat operations in Afghanistan, where a resilient enemy learns, adapts and grows, and we see that with the improvised explosive device threat. Fifty thousand people were killed or wounded in terrorist attacks during 2009, with over 50 per cent of victims being Muslim. There have been almost 18,000 terrorist attacks in the last 11 or 12 years. There were 300 suicide bombings in 2009 and tens of thousands killed in 2009. The vast majority of attacks were perpetuated by Islamic extremists, the majority of the victims being those who practise the Islamic faith. The world sometimes truly is a screwed-up place.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to recall that since September 11 over 110 Australians have been killed by terrorist attacks. In the September 11 terrorist attack in the US, 15 Australians were killed. On 12 October 2002, at Kuta, Bali, 88 Australians were killed—202 people were killed and 209 injured in total. On 9 September 2004, at the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, nine Indonesians were killed and 150-plus injured. On 7 July 2005, in the London train and bus bombings, one Australian was killed and 11 were injured—in total 56 people died and 700-plus were injured. On 1 October 2005, at Jimbaran Beach in Kuta, Bali, four Australians were killed and 19 injured out of a total of 26 deaths and 100 injuries. Of course, on 17 July 2009, at the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta, three Australians were killed—seven people were killed and 53 injured in total. International terrorism represents a significant, clear and very, very present danger to the world as a whole, including Australians. We are not isolated on our wonderful island continent in the southern part of the world, as 110 deaths in terrorist related incidents since September 11 unfortunately bear testimony to.
One need only look to the Middle East and to the lunacy of President Ahmadinejad and his thirst for power in terms of progressing the advent of nuclear weapons, which is where Iran wants to go. This simply bears testimony to the lunacy of some of the regimes that we face across the world. North Korea, of course, has detonated a number of nuclear devices. Reports in the media indicate that the military junta in Burma is seeking similar advances down that path. The stopping of the proliferation of nuclear weapons needs to be a key activity of the governments of all freedom-loving nations of the world. The governments of North Korea, Burma, Iran and other similar nations that purposefully pursue a nuclear program with the intent of the destruction of human life need to be made aware by the rest of the international community that their actions will not be condoned or tolerated.
Walls are built brick by brick in defence against terrorism and Islamic extremism. One of those bricks is this bill, which seeks to enshrine some of the prosecutorial elements of the convention. Australia as a sovereign nation and as a member of the wider international community will act to limit the potential damage caused by terrorists. We will act abroad in concern for our interests; we will act in concert with our allies, as we do in Afghanistan and other parts of the world; and we will act on a legislative basis to ensure that citizens, residents or visitors to our country do not involve themselves in these activities. We support the government on the bill and we wish it well in its implementation.
I would like to thank all of the members of the chamber who have spoken on this bill. It has been supported by both sides of the House. In fact, all of the speakers have indicated their support: the members for Stirling, Makin, Cook, Fowler, Mitchell, Melbourne Ports, Cowan, Hughes, Kooyong, Solomon and Fadden. I think this is an indication that across both sides of parliament people understand that the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will make an important contribution to Australia's fight against terrorism and misuse of weapons of mass destruction. It will also demonstrate to the international community that Australia is serious about cooperating with other nations to defeat threats to international peace and security.
Nuclear terrorism, of course, is a horrifying thought, as many of the speakers have reflected. A nuclear terrorist attack can kill millions, lay waste to cities and the environment and cause grave social and economic dislocation. We hope that the world never sees the day, but in today's security environment we should never discount the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack occurring. The bill will put in place offences that will allow Australia to prosecute nuclear terrorists. It will also facilitate cooperation with other nations in the fight against nuclear terrorism and the bill forms part of a broad effort by the international community to fight nuclear terrorism, including the fact that it will allow Australia to ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This is a significant piece of legislation which sends a strong message to the international community and would-be nuclear terrorists.
Of course, it is important for us always to remember to distinguish between this bill and debates which are inevitable in the community about uranium exports and nuclear power. Whatever your views might be on those issues, we can all unite—as has been evidenced by speakers in this chamber—around the proposition that we should be part of an effective international legal regime to fight nuclear terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
by leave—I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 4, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
As deputy chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I rise to speak in support of the committee's report 427, Inquiry into international funding agreements. I would like to acknowledge the contribution already made by the member for Lyne and chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit when tabling this report.
This report arises from the first major inquiry of the committee under this term of government. On 9 February 2011 the committee agreed to conduct an inquiry into the national funding agreements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The committee's terms of reference required the committee specifically to consider: (1) the changing dynamics of grants to states and territories, the types of grants that are made and the principles, agreements and legislation governing these grants; (2) the extent to which the current system's funding agreements satisfy the requirements of all levels of government, and any suggestions for changes to the process; (3) the need to balance the flexibility to allow states and territories to determine their own priorities, with mechanisms for monitoring and accountability, and ensuring that the objective of funding agreements are being achieved, noting the role of the COAG Reform Council; and (4) the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny of funding agreements, noting that such agreements are typically negotiated at executive-to-executive level.
As stated in the committee's report foreword, the Commonwealth dedicated a significant proportion of its funding for 2011-12 to the states and territories, with $45.5 billion of payments supporting national agreements and national partnerships. This committee has an ongoing interest in achieving value for money for the Australian taxpayer and believes that the arrangements to distribute this amount deserve parliamentary scrutiny. With the introduction of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations in 2009, the committee thought it timely to investigate the implementation of the national funding agreements under this new approach. The states and territories are responsible for delivering services and infrastructure in key areas of our economy through federal funds. There is a community expectation that the Commonwealth will account for those funds and ensure that we are not only achieving value for money but importantly achieving the outcomes sought under the national funding agreements.
The committee found that there was overall support for the new framework and its underlying principles and intent, the key changes being the shift from an inputs based to an outcomes based framework. However, the evidence of the witnesses identified shortcomings and complexities in the performance reporting requirements. The committee found that enhancements need to be made in the area of key performance indicators, better quality data collection and meaningful interpretation of that data. In addition, the committee came to the conclusion that, despite high-level mechanisms for parliament and the public to scrutinise the national funding agreements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, these mechanisms do not provide an adequate picture of national funding agreements. The committee has made a number of recommendations to enhance both the performance reporting and the scrutiny of the overall process. The committee made 15 recommendations, which go to the framework, implementation, performance reporting and scrutiny of national funding agreements.
In relation to the framework, the committee recommended that the Department of Finance and Deregulation examine the interaction between the new grants framework and grant payments delivered under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations. The report should propose options to remove inconsistencies and improve governance arrangements for all grants provided to states and territories.
On implementation and performance reporting, the committee made a number of recommendations that will ensure more clarity around assurance requirements and performance indicators. Although witnesses outlined the importance of states and territories having flexibility in the method of achieving outcomes under the new framework, the outcomes themselves require clarity. The committee has recommended that processes be established to ensure there is clarity on the outcomes to be achieved and that these outcomes are clearly reflected in the national funding agreements.
On enhancing the scrutiny of the national funding agreements, the committee has recommended that key reviews and reports of the COAG Reform Council and the Productivity Commission be tabled in parliament. The committee recognises that COAG and the COAG Reform Council are continuing to enhance the delivery of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations and that a range of review activity is underway. It is hoped that the recommendations of this committee will complement those ongoing reforms.
I take this opportunity to thank the chair, the member for Lyne, and all committee members for their work on this inquiry. I also thank the secretariat for their tireless work on what is a committee with a wide breadth of responsibilities and a complex workload. I also thank the Australian National Audit Office for their ongoing assistance with regard to this report and the other work of the committee. I commend the report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I do not intend to speak at length about report 428 of theJoint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 16 to 46 (2010-11). As the chair of the committee, the member for Lyne has already spoken to this report when tabling it in the last sitting of parliament last year. In this report the committee examined the following audit reports: Audits of financial statements of Australian Government entities; The Digital Education Revolution—National Secondary Schools Computer Fund, Maintenance of the defence estate;and Management of student visas. Overall, the review of the audit of financial statements showed positive results. The committee does believe there is further opportunity for improvement in transparency and has asked the Department of Finance and Deregulation to look into improving cross-agency and cross-jurisdictional financial reporting as part of the Commonwealth financial accountability review. In relation to the Digital Education Revolution, the Australian National Audit Office found that educational authorities had reported solid progress on the installation of computers, with the overall program achieving positive results and the fund set to meet its target of providing all students in years 9 to 12 with access to a computer by the start of the 2012 academic year. With questions to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the committee was also able to clarify some of the media reporting about charges being made to parents under this fund for the use of those computers. The department was able to explain how such circumstances have arisen where a school has chosen to introduce, or had already operating, a fee structure for the use of laptops or PCs in the schools. The department's explanation confirmed that the charges were not as a result of the National Secondary Schools Computer Fund and were decisions of the individual schools in relation to access of computers to other students outside of years 9 to 12 or were for other equipment that were superior to what was provided for under the fund because of the interests of the schools and where they wanted to progress in relation to their technology. So it was the individual choice of the schools but certainly not necessary for the accessing and provision of those computers.
In relation to the maintenance of the Defence estate, the committee heard that improvements are being made and, to ensure these improvements continue, the committee has asked that the Department of Defence provide a status report to the committee within six months on their progress. Similarly, changes are being made to the collection and reporting of student visas, and we have seen some improvements in the management of student visas. However, the committee wishes to ensure that improved outcomes are being achieved through these changes. That is why the committee has asked for a progress report on the student Visa program from both the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations within six months. The progress report will assist the committee in assessing progress in light of the government's response to two major reviews impacting the program. As stated for the member for Lyne in tabling this report, overall the inquiry has demonstrated that Australian government departments and agencies are well positioned to continue meeting their financial management obligations and that departments are making progress in addressing outstanding issues highlighted in the Australia National Audit Office reports.
In closing, I once again thank the chair and the committee members for their ongoing work on the committee. I thank the Australian National Audit Office for their ongoing support and assistance to the committee, and I especially thank the secretariat for all their hard work.
I will finish by making personal mention of the committee secretary, Mr David Brunoro. David is eagerly awaiting the overdue birth of his first child. The committee wishes David and his wife well with the imminent arrival of their new baby and thanks him for his work with the committee. I understand David will be taking leave in order to spend time with his new son or daughter and his wife, and we look forward to welcoming him back to the committee in the near future.
Debate adjourned.
I rise today to draw attention to an alarming situation concerning a lack of access to primary health care for residents in the Blue Mountains within the seat of Macquarie. The Blue Mountains, previously classified as a district of workforce shortage for general practitioners, has had its classification stripped from it by this short-sighted, incompetent Labor government. According to this government's own definition of 'district of workforce shortage', it is a geographical area of Australia in which the population's need for health care has not yet been met. This government has taken it upon itself to decide that the Blue Mountains population's need for health care has been met. Reality begs to differ. The national benchmark for GPs to population as at 2010 is one general practitioner per 1,113 people. In the Blue Mountains, the doctor-population ratio is one for 1,284 people. The disparity between the national benchmark and the ratio experienced in the Blue Mountains has real effects felt by general practitioners and residents, many of whom have contacted me to express their concern over the growing need for more doctors in our region. Statistics will speak the truth, even if this government will not. By not reaching the national benchmark the Blue Mountains population's need for primary health care is not being met. What is the government doing about it? This government is making it even tougher for general practices to attract doctors by taking away any incentive for metropolitan or international GPs to move to rural and regional areas to ease the burden and support the population's health care. What does this mean? Hospitals are being burdened, yet it is for this reason that the government set up its miracle cure for GP superclinics, designed to medicate the nation's woes by providing access to health care in rural areas. The Springwood GP superclinic is set to open officially any day now, approximately 18 months behind schedule.
In 2008 the Rudd government allocated up to $5 million to set up the clinic—an expensive exercise that promised greater access for Blue Mountain residents to primary health care. True to form the promise of the Labor government of the day was not delivered. Yes, the clinic was built; yes, the clinic is operational; and yes, $5 million of infrastructure is sitting at Springwood virtually empty as it struggles to attract GPs to the rural practice because of the incentives stripped from it when the government no longer considered the Blue Mountains as a district of workforce shortage. This government has built a clinic that is hardly super, with about half of the GPs it anticipated. The Rudd-Gillard government's fairytale of access to primary health care for all Australians hit a snag, created by itself, with the very idea of the superclinic policy contradicted by more bad policy.
The coalition strongly supports general practice as the cornerstone of primary health care. Stripping general practice of any means for it to provide primary health care acts in direct contravention of the reason it exists—to provide healthcare services to the community. This government has dictated to the people of the Blue Mountains that its healthcare needs are being met with no recognition for reality. Now, under the GP superclinics' sidekick, the Medicare Local program, the government is dictating to the population which GPs it can and cannot access through restrictions on rebates to general practice based on geographical limitations.
This government has made many areas of life for everyday Australians tough. This area of concern is no exception. The population suffers, general practices suffer, burdened hospitals suffer and $5 million worth of infrastructure sits professionally under-resourced. This is a classic example of the talent this government has for bungling policy. It makes no sense and it is severely disadvantaging Australia's primary healthcare system.
We have a community both in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury where the professional expertise is ageing. We have a number of GPs who have recently retired or who are about to retire. We have many practices that have closed their books. It is a challenge for individuals and for the population in general and, indeed, for the general practices to actually respond to the needs of their community. I bring this to the attention of the House and I call on the government to resolve the matter urgently.
The House will appreciate that on many occasions in this parliament I have spoken about the work of our police in protecting the community. Indeed, on Police Remembrance Day I specifically spoke about those police officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice in serving our community. Today I speak about another amazing and dedicated group of people who make invaluable contributions in respect to the safety and wellbeing of our society. Ambulance officers play a vital role in modern society, but it is not without a high degree of personal risk and sacrifice.
While most of us were at home enjoying Christmas Eve with our families, Michael Wilson, a paramedic with the New South Wales ambulance service was part of a special casualty access team and was engaged in a helicopter rescue mission involving two people at the base of Carrington Falls, south of Sydney. SCAT had received advice from the Australian search and rescue service that a distress beacon had been activated and SCAT was requested to respond. This 41-year-old father of three was an extraordinary man; clearly, a man of great courage and part of a highly trained team of men and women committed to serving our community. With over 15 years experience in the New South Wales ambulance service, he was dedicated to saving lives. Michael Wilson received many awards and commendations for his acts of bravery. He was not only a highly respected paramedic but an exemplar to his profession.
During the rescue on Christmas Eve, Michael was being lowered from a helicopter when, inexplicably, he appears to have fallen and become wedged between two boulders. When he slammed into the rocks Michael sustained critical injuries. Unable to free himself the helicopter line had to be cut. Given the hour and the emerging darkness, this meant that Michael could not receive assistance until a fellow paramedic, Tim Thisleton, was able to abseil down a rock face. Tragically, Michael died in his friend's arms.
Michael Wilson's death was the first time in more than three decades that a New South Wales ambulance officer was killed on duty. I had the honour of attending his funeral, along with hundreds of friends from the ambulance service, police force, fire and emergency service personnel and a veritable sea of blue flying suits, worn by the men and women of the helicopter rescue service. Sydney's St James church was literally swamped by those wanting to pay their respect to an heroic and extraordinary man who did extraordinary things for our community.
For many years my brother, Gerard, was also a paramedic in the New South Wales ambulance service, which gives for me a more poignant perspective to this dreadful accident. Not only was there a deep and profound sense of loss by Michael's family, and the great sadness borne by his friends and work colleagues, this tragic death causes us to reflect on Michael's role and that of all members of the New South Wales ambulance service. Clearly, Michael Wilson epitomised the very qualities that the community is rightly proud of. I speak of the honour, the dedication and the commitment to his profession. For our ambulance officers this often goes unrecognised or, worse, taken for granted until we need their assistance.
Notwithstanding the inherent risks and challenges, these men and women accept their duty and do what is necessary to save lives. It takes a special type of person to undertake this role, and on behalf of a very grateful community I thank them. Michael Wilson made a difference for the better in our community, and his family is right to be immensely proud of his contribution. I offer my most sincere condolences to Michael's wife, Kellie, his daughters, Eliza and Grace, and his son, Hugo. On behalf of this parliament I assure them that he will not be forgotten. The incredible courage, commitment and dedication to service that Michael showed will serve as an inspiration to us all. May Michael Wilson rest in peace.
They say that living with cystic fibrosis is like breathing through a straw 24 hours a day. I have tried it for 10 minutes, and it is not easy. That is one of the reasons why I will attend the Macarthur annual swimathon for cystic fibrosis in my electorate this weekend.
Cystic fibrosis is the most common life-threatening recessive genetic condition affecting Australian children and young adults today. There are 3,000 people in Australia living with the condition, which clogs internal organs, including the lungs and the pancreas, with thick, sticky mucus. This seriously affects breathing and congestion. People with CF require daily intensive chest physiotherapy to help break up the mucus in their lungs so that they can breathe. They also take up to 40 enzyme tablets each day to help with digestion, just to survive.
Sadly, one in every 2,500 babies is born with CF. There are 1 million genetic carriers of CF in Australia. Unfortunately there is no cure, and many children who have the condition do not reach adulthood. In my electorate tonight a launch party will be held at Camden Valley Inn, and on Saturday the swimathon for cystic fibrosis will be held at the Wollondilly Community Leisure Centre. Over the past four years Macarthur has raised more than $140,000 for Cystic Fibrosis New South Wales, a great achievement by everyone involved.
In recent weeks I have felt very proud to see my community come together again to donate auction items and sponsorship to raise funds for this important cause. The event is run entirely by local people who have formed a committee led by the local Fairfax community newspapers for Camden, Narellan, Wollondilly and Macarthur advertisers. I would particularly like to mention the platinum and gold sponsors of this year's event: Hennings Jewellers, Peter Jermyn, DA Global, Plus Fitness, Camden Valley Inn, Byrons Chartered Accountants, Xstrata Coal, the Advertiser newspapers , Macarthur BEC, Illawarra Coal, FDC Construction, the TRN Group, Lifehouse Church Camden, Wollondilly Community Leisure Centre, Sharon's Photography, Macarthur Castles, Tahmoor Lions Club and Framing Beautiful. Without these sponsors the event would not be as successful as it is.
On Saturday I will take part in the swimathon as a member of Team Lozza. This team swims to support Lauren Rowe from Raby who lives with CF. Doctors gave Lauren 12 months to live when she was 19 years old unless she received a double lung transplant. Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy, I am sure you would agree that being told you are going to die is not something any teenager should have to hear. But Lauren never gave up hope. Her story is one of great courage and determination.
Before her transplant Lauren was confined to the lounge, attached to an oxygen tank and suffering terribly with lung bleeds. She dreamt of a brighter future where she would be able to take in a deep breath, go for a walk or simply spend time with her friends and family. Considering her circumstances, staying so positive would not have been easy, but Lauren showed great courage in the face of adversity and she never gave up hope. On 31 March 2010 Lauren received the news that she had been waiting for—a match had been found . She received her life-saving surgery. After many painful and difficult complications with her new lungs Lauren pulled through ready for her new life. I am very pleased to say that two years later Lauren is now living her life to the fullest. She is making the most out of every day, a promise she made whilst waiting for her transplant.
Sadly, Lauren's story is not one of a kind. In fact, she is one of 80 people in Macarthur and 3,000 people in Australia living with this life-threatening condition. I would like to take this opportunity to mention some of the courageous kids from my electorate who fight this battle every day: Julia Free; Corey Harvey; Tonia Dempsey; Jaylee Booshand; Lauren Rowe; Alden and Euan Keogh; Jessica Clements; Nicholas McNeill; Mitch Riley; Sue Briscoe; and Mitchell, Ashleigh and Jordan Bradney. Their courage, despite the terrible hand they have been dealt, is truly inspiring, especially in such young children. While most kids their age wished for iPads and iPods this Christmas, these guys make the same wish every year: that someone will find a cure for cystic fibrosis.
This is why the Macarthur community continues to come together to help raise money and support some of our bravest young residents. Today, I would like to congratulate everyone who has helped organise this fantastic event and all those who are taking part. I would also like to thank those who have sponsored me for my swim on Saturday. Luckily no-one sponsored me per lap, but some have donated on the proviso that I wear the Team Lozza uniform, which includes fluro pink tights. I think this will cost them a lot more money!
I feel very proud to be part of a community of people who care so much about each other that they come together to organise such a positive event each year. Cystic fibrosis can be a very isolating condition, with sufferers not allowed to spend time with each other due to the dangers of cross-infection. That is why it is important for those people living with CF in my electorate to have the entire community standing behind them, a community that shares the same wish: that someday soon CF will stand for one thing—'cure found'.
There are a number of key issues which are front and centre for any government and any country. Good economic management is one of them. There is now absolutely no doubt that this Gillard Labor government are very good economic managers and have done an excellent job in managing the Australian economy.
Anyone who is interested—and that should be everybody; every Australian should be interested—should take a little bit of time to look at the evidence, the hard data, the facts that are on the table. Australia now leads the world in every economic indicator of good economic management and of good government, be it debt to GDP, our national debt, home ownership, employment or unemployment, skills and education, the way healthcare is managed or our business conditions and the viability of business in Australia. You only have to look to the OECD. But do not stop there. I would encourage people to go much further than the OECD and look at every other economic indicator that is out in the market from every credible organisation. Have a look for yourself at just what is happening in this country. We are the lucky country. In fact, we have never been a luckier country.
You have to go back to the golden era of the 1950s to find comparable economic conditions, economic management, prosperity and potential, and all the other indicators that show that this is a great country. It is managed well and there is much evidence of that. Unemployment is at record to near record lows in tough economic times. Do not forget that you need to juxtapose how well Australia is running with what is happening not only in our own backyard, our region of the Asia-Pacific, but in every other country in the world. It would be hard—I would say impossible—to find any other country or economy that is doing as well as ours, on so many indicators. You could always find one indicator that might say that some other country is in front of us. But on so many indicators you would find none. In fact, it has been said many times by other economies, other governments and other treasurers that they would hack off an arm and a leg to have an economy as strong as the Australian economy.
Some people out in the community have been misled, though. If you listened to the opposition, you would think it was all doom and gloom and that you may as well close the shop, close the doors and sit at home waiting for doom and gloom. The opposition talk about only one thing—that is, potentially how bad everything could be, in the face of all the evidence that is quite clear.
Recently Australia, with its well-managed and disciplined fiscal strategy, was for the first time ever in its history, in tough conditions, awarded a AAA rating from all three global rating agencies. I think that says something not only about the Australian economy but about the Labor Gillard government and the way in which we manage the economy.
I want to make a comparison between the way the federal government is operating and the contribution from the Queensland government and the good work they have both been doing in not only very tough times but good economic conditions in Queensland. But there is a risk to that because on 24 March there will be an election in Queensland. The risk is that people will change government and potentially end that economic growth and development.
I want to talk briefly about Mr Campbell Newman, who is running to be the premier, if he is elected in the state seat that he is running for. We know his record: a tunnel that went broke, with every single investor—ordinary mums and dads—losing every single dollar that they put in. That was an enormous cost to individuals, as well as to the Brisbane city taxpayers. There is also a bike scheme which, as much as I am in support of that, is unfortunately being mismanaged. This failed scheme is actually costing ratepayers $38,000 a week. And, after seven weeks of the biggest floods in Queensland's history, we see a city council mayor get up and leave, pack his bags and say, 'I'm not interested in Brisbane anymore; I'm going to go and do something else.' But he has a record, particularly in the private sector. He also says he is in touch with the regions, because he had his time at Grainco.
Let us have a quick look at Grainco. What has Mr Newman done for the shareholders of Grainco? He has done a lot for them—mostly lose their money! His record of failure, from the time when he started at Grainco in 1997, has been that of a rapid decline. Shares went from 5c to zero, his claimed profits were just not substantiated, certainly not in company records, while crops were at their best in 10 years, and he made record losses. I am saying to the people of Queensland: on 24 March, when you consider how important your vote is, look at his track record and history— (Time expired)
In his first inaugural address, former United States President Abraham Lincoln spoke of the 'mystic chords of memory' that bind communities together. Those magic strands of reminiscence were interwoven this past weekend in my electorate of Casey as hundreds of people assembled to mark one of Australia's worst natural disasters in living memory.
Last weekend a group of Yarra Valley residents organised a Black Saturday remembrance cruise to mark the third anniversary of the inferno that claimed 173 Victorian lives. Two of my constituents, Stacey and Troy Kinsmore, run a classic car restoration business in Lilydale. On that horrible day in 2009 they lost two very close friends, Kate Ansett and Steve Fisher.
Stacey and Troy came up with an idea that would express both their passion and their grief. The plan was simple: on the closest Saturday to the anniversary of Black Saturday, a convoy of cars and motorcycles would make its way through the Yarra Valley communities which were ravaged by the fires. This past weekend I joined the convoy of over 400 vehicles that set out from Lilydale, along the Maroondah Highway. With our headlights switched on as a mark of respect, we travelled onto the Melba Highway, through Yarra Glen, Dixons Creek and Steels Creek and then turned right through Toolangi and Chum Creek to Healesville, following the scorched earth path that burned through our communities and our hearts 1,092 days earlier. All along the way, local residents assembled by the roadside. Of course, more than a few tears were shed. By six o'clock the remembrance cruise had assembled in Healesville, where participating cars and bikes were on display. Stacey's sister Wendy Bennett recited a lovely poem. Yarra Ranges Councillor Jeanette McRae then called for a moment's silence and read the names of each of the 12 locals who perished that horrible day.
The events of Black Saturday will be forever etched in all of our minds. I remember watching from my balcony at Chirnside Park that afternoon as the massive mushroom of smoke gathered over Kinglake to the north-west as gale-force winds swept the flames into the Yarra Valley, with embers landing like meteors and then consuming homes and destroying lives. It was both frightening and sobering. The scope of this catastrophe served as a reminder of the powerful wrath of nature.
But the fires and their aftermath of course also showcased the triumph of courage and spirit, as we know—the triumph of basic human decency that has been so abundant throughout the Yarra Valley. It was on display as the inferno raged when firefighters, police and ordinary citizens put life and limb at risk to save not only their neighbours and their friends but also to rescue those they had never met. It was on display in the aftermath as well, as entire communities came together to relieve, rebuild and remember. Perhaps this was best exemplified by the relief centre at Yarra Glen that was organised spontaneously by local residents and served as a vital hub for the community.
I had the opportunity to engage in a bit of quiet reflection on the drive and, as the soft summer afternoon light slowly faded to dusk, I was reminded of Catholic philosopher Dorothy Day, who said, 'We can throw a pebble in a pond and be confident that its ever-widening circle will reach all around the world.' Through the Black Saturday remembrance cruise, Stacey Kinsmore threw a pebble into a pond hoping for a ripple—but she generated a wave. Last weekend's cruise did not limit itself solely to repairing the soul and the spirit; it had a tangible aspect as well. Participants raised close to $10,000 for the Healesville Country Fire Authority.
Stacey Kinsmore was overwhelmed by the success of the cruise, and rightly so. The response to her appeal for this event was indeed overwhelming, with hundreds of people answering the call to reflect, remember and rededicate. I want to extend my congratulations to her; to Troy, her husband; to her friend Jodie, who I met; to her sister Wendy who participated and to her other friends who helped so much. Congratulations also to the Rivendell group who conducted a ceremonial tree-planting and reflective walk around the new Healesville labyrinth; the Rocky Road Choir, the famous, fantastic fixture of Healesville, who sang as participants walked; to Bill and his crew from the CFA who did so much on the day to provide parking, order and, of course, the sausage sizzle; and to my other council representatives, Tim Heenan and Len Cox. (Time expired)
I hope the member for Casey will pass on my congratulations to those people involved in that, because it is an important thing, and we who stood there and watched the fire come to our doorsteps know just how terrible that was.
On that note, it was a pleasure to be with the Prime Minister in Flowerdale in my electorate for the presentation of the inaugural National Emergency Medal, part of the Australia Day honours. The medal is an operational service medal which recognises significant and sustained service to others in a nationally significant emergency. The award acknowledges that there is more than one way to support a community during a crisis. And I would like to pay tribute to two outstanding recipients of the award from my community: Helen Kenney and Dr Anne Leadbeater.
In 2009 Anne was a community facilitator for the Murrindindi Shire before that fateful day, and she had just finished her master's thesis on disaster relief. How timely was that? During Black Saturday and the following weeks and months, Anne was a linchpin for the community and various agencies. She was a one-stop shop, organising and initiating comfort and communication. She brought structure and process to the chaotic situation. She managed to organise regular community meetings where people could access down-to-earth, credible information, and where the emergency services could pass on their consistent message to the community and coordinate their work. There is also Helen Kenney, who until last year was the captain of the St Andrews CFA. For 12 years, Helen as captain of the local CFA was a community leader defending her area in times of crisis. I know that she leaves behind an extremely proud legacy. Helen is an amazing person. She is short in stature but big in heart. You probably would not find a bigger heart in a person anywhere. I know that Helen has always been there and always been available for her community in helping them to get on with the rebuilding process. Her commitment to the CFA and to the local community are reasons why she is held in such high regard by many in our region, and her significant achievements have never gone unnoticed. On behalf of the people of McEwen I would like to thank both Anne and Helen for their goodwill to others and for their strength following what was a traumatic time for all of us.
Australia Day in McEwen, as always, was a very highly rewarding experience. It is a day when all Australians can take stock of what a great country we live in. I started the day at the Wallan Neighbourhood House breakfast, and I want to thank two great contributors to the Wallan community in Dot Evans and Pauline Cornish. Their dedication and spirit symbolises everything that is great about Australia Day: bringing the community together for a mandatory barbecue breakfast, some flag-waving, some song-singing and the recognition of great people.
I then went off to the citizenship ceremony at the town hall in Kyneton, in the Macedon Ranges. The Macedon Ranges are a great feature of the McEwen electorate. They also suffered fires on Ash Wednesday, back in 1983. I was honoured to be there to present a Community Achievement Award to McEwen residents Jean Dixon, Eane Whitton, Felicity Morley and Vanessa Meredith. The Young Citizen of the Year Award went to a most deserving Andrew Beard. To hear Andrew's story is to hear something amazing. He was a young boy left parentless, bringing up his siblings on his own. He continued to go to university and continued to raise the family and keep the family unit together. It is an absolutely amazing story and he was very well deserving of the award. The Citizen of the Year Award went to Janet Hawkins, who is also an amazing person with her time and commitments and what she does for everyone. The Community Event of the Year went to the Gisborne Olde Time Market. It is a great fixture to come and see in the Gisborne community. There are lots of laughs, lots of fun and lots of things that you take your wife to where she empties out your pockets as she fills up with stuff and brings it home. It is a fantastic place.
I also attended another citizenship ceremony in South Morang. South Morang is a growing community that is diverse in multiculturalism. I am continually amazed that, despite the growth and new people moving in, it has retained its character and charm. Australia Day is a day on which we can all be proud of who we are. We spend it with friends and family, preparing for the year ahead. As always, Australia Day in McEwen emulates that spirit. I thoroughly enjoyed it, as I always do, and the many community events in my area that I get the pleasure to attend.
I rise to raise concerns about the extraordinary increase in licence fees charged by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to commercial fishing operators in my electorate. It has come to my attention that AFMA fees have increased to such an extent that they are threatening the future viability of fishermen in the region. At least one person has indicated that the increase in fees has been so exorbitant that it will be uneconomical for them to continue in their small business. By way of explanation, in the past three years the licence fee for that particular business has increased from $5,287 to $7,138, and this year it is to increase further to $14,183. I am struggling to think of any other business that has had to bear such exorbitant fee increases in such a short period of time. As a small operator they have decided that it is simply not worth going to sea just to pay a licence fee to the government.
Another account has been provided to me by a larger operator who has had an increase in fees from $35,000 to $45,000 in one calendar year. This particular operator wrote to me and said:
The only explanation I can get for the increase is that management costs have risen. In recent years the Lakes co-op—
That is, the Lakes Entrance co-op—
has participated in a three year co management trial with AFMA in a bid to reduce the costs of management. This effort and the results seem to have been largely ignored and brushed aside. If these increases were to continue at this rate it would make it extremely hard to run a profitable business as we are unable to pass the costs on. The increase also impacts the income of our crew as their wages are based on a percentage of the catch. It seems as if AFMA are unable to run to their allocated budgets and the industry is being forced to cover the shortfall.
It is impossible for fishermen to budget with any certainty whatsoever when they are hit with such exorbitant fee increases. The fishermen simply cannot pass on these costs to consumers because they operate in a market based system, and I fear the local economy will suffer considerably if the individual operators have less disposable income.
By way of background, Lakes Entrance is home to one of Australia's largest and most diverse fishing fleets, with an average of about 6,000 tonnes per year landed at the port by Commonwealth operators. As I said, every dollar the government takes in AFMA licence fees is another dollar that is not available to be spent in our town.
I have written to the federal minister and urged him to intervene and help secure the future viability of the Lakes Entrance fishing industry. Keep in mind that the regional economy is already under pressure, and stripping wealth out of Lakes Entrance to prop up a bureaucracy that cannot live within its means will be a significant blow to my community. Over the years, the commercial fishing industry has been hit with a constant barrage of new challenges, ranging from cuts in their quotas to increases in fuel prices, competition from cheap overseas imports and reduced access to fishing grounds due to oil and gas activities in Bass Strait and the government imposed reserves. As one industry source said to me, 'If we continue on this path, there will be nothing left to manage.'
On a separate but related topic to fishery resources, I want to take the opportunity to remind Gippslanders and visitors to my region of the need to be well informed when it comes to state government rules and regulations. As someone who has occasionally dived recreationally for abalone in the past, I have become aware of regulation changes which may not be widely known throughout the community. There are now regulations that prevent the taking of abalone from an area that is described as the intertidal zone, but for all intents and purposes the intertidal zone means water less than two metres deep. As I found out, to considerable personal expense, fisheries officers are patrolling the Gippsland coast and will issue on-the-spot infringement notices for any breaches. Of course, ignorance of these regulations is no defence for any recreational diver and I have paid my on-the-spot fines, but it is timely to remind all recreational fishermen to keep abreast of these changes.
I thought I was quite well informed of these regulations about the need to hold a current recreational fishing licence, the revised bag limits and the catch sizes, but I was totally unaware of the two-metre ruling and the need to carry a flat-headed device for removing abalone from the rocks.
As someone who reads local papers and tries to keep up with the latest in regulations it concerns me that I was not aware of these changes, which were made several years ago, so I thought I would take the time to check with other locals I knew had taken abalone in the past. From the conversations I have had in recent weeks with several of friends and colleagues, some of them parliamentarians in fact, and other recreational fishermen, anecdotally it appears that there is quite a gap in knowledge in the community and that it is quite significant. I have heard of other people who have been fined recently through lack of understanding of these and other fisheries regulations, and I believe we need to do more to make sure that everyone who plans to take marine life is better informed.
Managing our fisheries is a serious issue, which I think members on both sides of the House take seriously, and the enforcement officers have a very important job to do. But there is also a need to make sure we improve the education and awareness about regulations, particularly when those regulations change. It does not help, of course, when signage which has been erected for that purpose at popular recreational areas such as Cape Conran, where I was visiting, has been vandalised to the extent that it is actually unreadable. But there are other sources of information and I refer people to websites and to the recreational fishing licence handbook, which is updated regularly. I would urge all recreational fishermen to get a copy and familiarise themselves with it for the species they are targeting. (Time expired)
I have often said that Tony Abbott has not had an idea that John Howard did not think of first. When it comes to the economy, it is pretty clear that Tony Abbott is committed to relying upon a very faulty memory of what they perceive to be the golden years of the Howard government when reality seems to suggest otherwise. They were called out on this big-time by Malcolm Farr in recent times when he basically matched up the claims we are hearing from the other side of politics versus the reality. I think it is important to look back on those years when the Howard government was in place and see how they actually performed as so-called economic managers. Remember that we have had Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah say—
I would remind the member for Chifley to refer to members by their seat and their title.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had already corrected myself—and thank you for using my time! I want to go back and pick up, for example, the claim by the member for Warringah in his National Press Club speech when he said, 'We've done it before and we'll do it again; after all, 16 members of the current shadow cabinet were ministers in the Howard government.' A ringing endorsement, that! So let us go through some of the claims. Let us look at the inflation rate. In late 2007, inflation was just under four per cent and late last year it was under three per cent. The tax take took up 24 per cent of national output in the peaks under the coalition and is headed for 21 per cent under this government. Official interest rates, for only six months of the 11 years of the Howard government, were as low as the current 4.5 per cent, perhaps dropping to four in due course. Again, Mr Farr quotes the member for Warringah:
At the heart of our plan for a stronger economy is getting government spending down …
When you look at the figures you will see that, in 11 years of coalition government, there was not one year in which government spending was reduced. It grew by an average of 3.7 per cent in the final five years of the coalition government. Mr Farr goes on:
Current projections for spending growth have an average of 1.5 per cent.
It is worth bearing in mind fiscal consolidation, the amount of money cut out of the budget—$22 billion in one year alone, the highest in 40 years under the coalition government. As for fond memories, Mr Farr says:
… you don’t put into the economic equation a global recession which took more than $140 billion from the tax revenue—
of this government. In fact, the coalition will, for example, point to the deficits and completely airbrush out of history the fact that there was an economic catastrophe that people had not before witnessed, the worst in 75 years, in the shape of the global financial crisis. Yet they are quick to say to us that we need to remember the Asian economic crisis. Importantly, one cannot get away from the fact that the GFC had such an impact.
I am also quite puzzled as to how the coalition, which is fond of turning up to the opening of schools which have benefited from Building the Education Revolution funding, hasten to then criticise it the minute they step off the grounds of those schools. Again, it is worth noting that, under the coalition, the Regional Partnerships program ran for eight years and, as Mr Farr says: 'It made the BER scheme look like a well-oiled economic mechanism of integrity and efficiency.' For example:
The BER never funded a Queensland coastal hotel which boasted gaming and strippers, but a 2005 Senate inquiry was told—
that that was exactly what the Howard government's Regional Partnerships program did.
Again, it is important to note that this Labor government took action to move quickly to respond to the GFC. As a result there was higher growth, lower unemployment, lower inflation and economic credentials that were the envy of most advanced economies. Imagine if we had listened to those opposite, who said they would have spent less, who would have modelled and would have done what Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, indicated in February 2010 that they would do. He said, 'We should be spending less.' That was his prescription for the GFC. He was not prepared to lead a coalition that would argue that, at its worst point, the economy needed the injection of cash that was required to keep it buoyant. They need to be called out for their failure on the economy.
I would like to raise, again, in this chamber the issue of media ownership. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know my longstanding interest in this matter. At the heart of our democracy is the need for fair and balanced media reporting. Last week I, along with many Australians, was very concerned that the wealthiest citizen of Australia signalled her intention to acquire a controlling interest or to engage in a full takeover of our second largest media company in Australia, Fairfax.
I think there is an urgent need for Ms Rinehart to indicate that this is a friendly takeover, to maximise the benefit of its shareholders. Sadly, there are many reports in the media that this is not the case and there is a threat, potentially, if editors and journalists do not support her commercial agenda, as someone who is fiercely opposed to the minerals resource rent tax and supports global warming deniers. I think that is a terrible threat to public interest, to the future of our democracy because, as I said, at the heart of our democracy is the very need to have fair and balanced reporting.
I am not saying that Miss Rinehart should not express her views—she is entitled to express the views that she has expressed—but she is not entitled to trash our democracy and remove editors and journalists if they express opinions that are contrary to the opinions that are held by her. So I ask today that Miss Rinehart come out and indicate her intentions in relation to media ownership and let Australians know that this is a friendly takeover or controlling interest and that the public interest and our democracy will not be trashed.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 13:00