I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government accepts the advice of climate scientists that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change and that this poses great risks to our environment, our economy and our society.
Climate change is a diabolical international problem with an achievable international solution.
In this matter, Australia has a choice.
We can be part of growing international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use the market to reduce emissions at least cost to our economy.
Or we as a country can reject the advice of scientists, reject the advice of economists, ignore our international responsibility, and in so doing put our future prosperity at risk.
The Australian government has a responsibility to act in our national interest to be part of the international solution. Australia will not ignore that responsibility. This government will not ignore it.
Australia is in fact one of the top 20 greenhouse gas emitters internationally, and the highest per capita emitter amongst the advanced economies.
And anyone who suggests to the Australian community that we can have a free ride and that other nations with lower per capita emissions and less-developed economies must take all the responsibility while Australia does nothing is engaged in nothing less than an act of deceit.
That pathway will lead to retaliation in our trading relationships.
Australia has the 14th-highest GDP per capita in the world. Does anyone seriously think that our Asian trading partners, which are so vital to our economic future, which have much lower per capita income, which are dragging hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, will give us a free ride in tackling climate change? They will not.
Australia must do its fair share—and it is in our economic self-interest to do so, because the economies that will be competitive in the 21st century will be those that innovate, those that move to clean energy, those that reduce the emissions intensity of their economies.
If we are the innovators, if we reduce the emissions intensity of our economy, if we utilise our renewable energy resources, Australia will have that competitive edge.
Now, the Gillard government began this process through the enactment of the clean energy legislation last year, and the commencement of the carbon price mechanism.
And let's be clear about it—we have introduced an emissions trading scheme that commences with a three-year fixed price period where the carbon price is fixed just for those three years. After that transitional period, we will have a fully flexible emissions trading scheme where the carbon price will be set by the market—a market that will be international in its nature.
The carbon price began 80 days ago and the world has not ended, as those opposite had forecast. We have simply begun a sensible economic transformation and started the process of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions in an economically responsible way.
From 1 July 2015, when emissions trading commences, national greenhouse gas emissions will in fact be capped, enabling Australia to meet targeted cuts in emissions each year.
These targeted cuts in emissions reflect the commitments that have been made by this country to the international community—commitments that reflect our fair share of the task in tackling climate change, commitments that both sides of politics have signed up to.
But the baseless fear campaign by those opposite against action on climate change has demonstrated that they have no commitment to anything at all. The only thing that matters over there is the shallow political opportunism that they have engaged in. Any deceit will do. But it will not do for the good of this country.
As our Prime Minister made clear just over a year ago, this government is on the right side of history.
This bill that I am introducing today and the associated bills make amendments to the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts which will extend the international dimension of our contribution to the challenge of climate change.
They give legislative effect to an interim link between Australia's emissions trading scheme and the European Union Emissions Trading System, along with a number of changes to Australia's scheme to facilitate this linkage.
This bill also makes minor changes designed to improve the flexibility of Australian auctions of carbon units and to recognise specific circumstances around the treatment of natural gas under the Australian scheme.
International linking
If I could turn to the issue of international linking, which is at the heart of the bill that I am presenting. The bill means that from 1 July 2015, we will be linking the Australian carbon price mechanism to the European Union's emissions trading scheme. It is an important international agreement that has been reached between the Australian government and the European Commission. This confirms that the fixed carbon price will end on 30 June 2015 and that we will move to a fully flexible emissions trading scheme where the Australian carbon price reflects the price in the largest carbon market in the world.
In other words, the Australian carbon price will reflect the price in our second largest trading bloc and be the same as in at least 30 other countries, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Our carbon price will be consistent with that which obtains in countries inhabited by no fewer than 530 million people—making a mockery of the fallacious argument that Australia is acting alone, or somehow has a carbon price ahead of the pack. Our carbon price will in fact be consistent with that which obtains in 30 other countries, including, in aggregate, our second largest trading bloc.
The European Union Emissions Trading System was the first international carbon market and now makes up more than three-quarters of the world’s carbon market. It has operated since 2005 and has delivered cost-effective emissions reductions across the European Union.
Overall, linking the Australian emissions trading scheme with the European ETS is good for Australian industry, good for our economy and good for our environment.
Linking means that an Australian business with a carbon price liability under our scheme will be able to purchase a carbon emissions unit—which is effectively a permit to emit a tonne of greenhouse gas—in either the Australian or the European carbon markets.
Those permits in fact can be bought now, for compliance in the period following 1 July 2015 in the Australian scheme.
Businesses know that the most cost-effective way to cut pollution is through an open market mechanism and that is exactly what this legislation ensures. Providing Australian businesses access to the world’s largest carbon market allows emissions to be reduced in the most cost-efficient way, by broadening the pool of carbon units that can be used by businesses.
As well as benefiting businesses, linking also has wider economic benefits. Linking will reduce the cost of the emissions reduction effort to the Australian economy.
As Treasury modelling clearly demonstrates, without the ability to access international carbon markets, without the ability for Australian businesses to purchase international permits, the cost of reducing emissions in our economy would double in order to meet Australia’s bipartisan unconditional emissions reduction target. This is something those opposite need to carefully consider. They say they have committed to the same emissions reduction target. They oppose international linkage, which means that their policy will cost at least double if they were to genuinely pursue the emissions reduction effort they say they are committed to, and that is the importance of this bill to the Australian economy. It will achieve our emissions reduction targets at the lowest possible cost.
We have always, as a government, recognised the benefits of linking in this way, and that is why it has been the Labor government’s policy to link with international carbon markets. In fact, linking with international carbon markets has been Australian government policy since 2007 under Prime Minister John Howard's government. The Australian government’s 2007 Shergold report, the report commissioned by Prime Minister John Howard, had this to say:
As a supporter of the development of a global system, Australia has a direct interest in promoting links between comparable schemes. Any Australian domestic trading scheme should be designed to enhance the scope for links, both formal and informal, with as many different systems as possible.
It is common sense to support international linking because it assists in providing emissions reduction at least cost and it contributes to knitting together different national and regional schemes.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The member for Flinders is warned!
It develops a common carbon price across economies, a common incentive to cut emissions, and fairly shares the burden of doing so.
We have a responsibility, as the leaders of this nation and as elected representatives of the federal parliament, to act in the interests of all Australians, both current and future generations. Ultimately, the scientists have warned us that the planet is warming and that warming is caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They have warned us that continued warming will have severe consequences, which may include more frequent droughts, more days with high fire danger, changes in rainfall patterns, increased heat waves and more intense cyclones. This poses a risk to the environment, our economy and our way of life. No responsible government can ignore these risks.
Responsible governments must take action—action that is environmentally effective, economically efficient, and socially fair. Those have been the underpinning principles of government formulation of policy in responding to climate change—environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency, and being socially fair and equitable. That is Labor's approach—action we can take to protect our economy and minimise the risk of the most extreme impacts occurring. That is the action we are taking.
This is a global problem and it requires global efforts to reduce pollution. There are many out to mislead the Australian public by saying that Australia is acting alone and our efforts are meaningless unless part of global action. But this argument falls down on two fronts, and it is important to address them.
Firstly, Australia is far from acting alone. Every major economy is taking action. From 2013, 850 million people will live in a place where polluters pay for their pollution. The world is acting and we are part of that action.
The second reason the argument of these detractors falls down is that many of these same people who say a global solution is required also categorically oppose international linking. If you accept that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution, it follows that you should support opening up trade with other countries to ensure pollution is reduced at the least cost. A globally coordinated approach must be fundamental to Australian climate change policy.
Because the Australian and European systems both cap the overall level of emissions, the use of a European allowance by an Australian emitter means that one less tonne of carbon pollution is released in Europe. Our challenge is to reduce global emissions. One tonne of pollution reduced in Europe delivers the same environmental benefit as a tonne of pollution reduced in Australia.
We are an open economy and a trading nation. This is one more commodity that needs to be included in our trading relationships with other countries. By opening up trade in carbon, we will ensure that pollution is reduced at the least cost, which will benefit households, businesses and the environment. The type of economic xenophobia and anti-market rhetoric that has been used when it comes to linking emissions trading schemes is backward and irresponsible.
We are very proud to stand on this side of the parliament and be able to say this will be the first intercontinental linkage of emissions trading schemes. It represents an important development towards the establishment of an interlinked global carbon market and global action on climate change. It is the first link between Europe and emerging carbon markets in the Asia-Pacific region.
Emissions trading schemes, it is worth noting, are currently being developed in China, which is our largest trading partner; Korea, our fourth largest trading partner; and California, which in its own right is the world’s eighth-largest economy. These are just some examples of the development of carbon markets in our own region which ultimately we have the objective to link with.
In fact, market based mechanisms to reduce pollution are in place or being developed in eight of our top 10 trading partners.
Other key economies in the Asia-Pacific such as Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are also entering the carbon market.
This will lead to the development of a cooperative Asia-Pacific carbon market in the future.
The link with the EU is also very important for the competitiveness of Australian industries. The linking arrangements—this is an extremely important feature of the bills I am presenting to the House today—have the potential to increase the effective assistance delivered to our emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries by the Jobs and Competitiveness Program. For example, if a highly emissions-intensive activity is able to source Kyoto units on the market for half of the price of European allowances, their effective assistance rate in 2015-16 could rise to 97 per cent. The assistance delivery also retains the incentive for emissions reductions.
This is an extremely important measure to support the members of our community, and their families, who are employed in these important emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities like aluminium smelting, steel making, cement manufacturing and a host of others. It will support the competitiveness of those businesses.
This bill and the amendments it contains are intended to provide the legislative foundation for this link and future links with other emissions trading schemes.
The link with the European Union ETS will first allow European allowance units to be used for compliance under the Australian scheme for liabilities incurred between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2018. This will be followed by a full bilateral link from 1 July 2018 where units from both schemes may be used for compliance in either system.
To simplify the linking arrangements and facilitate the convergence of Australian and European carbon prices, the government has announced that it will no longer proceed with the carbon price floor from 1 July 2015, and that it will restrict the quantity of eligible Kyoto units that Australian entities can use to discharge their liability.
This bill eliminates the price floor from existing legislation by removing the requirement for a minimum auction reserve price for the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, and repealing the act that provided for a surrender charge on eligible international emissions units.
The bill also limits Australian entities' use of eligible Kyoto units to 12.5 per cent of their total liability and provides the government with the ability to introduce other limits on eligible international emissions units should this flexibility be required in the future.
In relation to the designated limit of 12.5 per cent, or one-eighth of a liability, for Kyoto units, the bill provides that this designated limit percentage may not be changed before 1 July 2020. This will provide certainty to Australian liable entities in relation to their allowable surrender of international units, and hence certainty in relation to their emissions reduction investment and compliance strategies and also certainty in relation to the level of assistance available to them under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program. That is eight years of certainty.
The bill also provides the government with flexibility to implement the most appropriate set of registry arrangements to establish the interim link with the European Union ETS, and flexibility in establishing future registry arrangements with other jurisdictions should links to other schemes be concluded in the future.
Equivalent carbon price
This bill also alters the current arrangements for applying an equivalent carbon price to synthetic greenhouse gases and some liquid fuel use, to ensure that it reflects the effective carbon price faced by liable entities under the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme when linked to the European Union ETS.
Auctions
The government proposes to make minor and technical changes to the design of the auction scheme for the Australian emissions trading scheme, to improve its operation and streamline the arrangements. These changes take account of further consultation on the detailed design of the auction scheme and the commencement of the detailed design process.
The amendments increase the carbon unit auction limit from 15 million to 40 million for 2015-16 carbon units that are auctioned in 2013-14, and 20 million for all other advance auctions before a pollution cap is set.
The amendments also establish that where there is not a pollution cap in place, units cannot be sold at auctions held more than three years in advance of their vintage year.
In addition, the bill provides for the approach to setting auction reserve prices to be determined in a ministerial determination.
Finally, the bill simplifies the treatment of relinquished carbon units.
Natural gas
There are also some measures contained in the bill in relation to natural gas. In order for the carbon price to maintain effective and complete coverage of natural gas, the bill allows regulations to be made to provide for coverage of alternative natural gas arrangements, supporting competitive neutrality in the industry.
The bill also amends the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, so that from 1 July 2013 the methods to measure and adjust liabilities for liquid and gaseous fuels may be set out in a disallowable ministerial determination. This will give more certainty to the liquid and gaseous fuels sectors and more flexibility in emissions reporting, which is appropriate given the complex commercial arrangements in these sectors.
Conclusion
In conclusion it is important reiterate some key elements. The fact of the matter is that countries around the world are taking action to tackle climate change.
Australia’s carbon price is now part of this global action.
It is submitted in pursuit of the commitments that we have made internationally, which are supported by the opposite side of parliament, to tackle this problem in our domestic economy.
With emissions trading schemes in 33 countries and 18 subnational jurisdictions expected to be in operation from 2013, it is likely this linking arrangement is the first of many to come, which will lead to a deep and liquid global carbon market.
It gives the lie to the claims that no other countries are acting.
Linking to the European Union Emission Trading System is a historic achievement not only for Australia but for global action on climate change.
When future generations look back on the Clean Energy Act and associated acts, the emissions reductions it will have driven and the global carbon market it will have supported, I believe they will thank the members of this parliament who have rejected the argument for delay in acting on climate change and who have embraced a clean energy future. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is part of a package of bills, which I referred to in the previous second reading speech, that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
The bill facilitates the removal of the price floor by removing the requirement for a minimum auction reserve charge from the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Once again, this bill is part of a package of bills that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
This specific bill facilitates the removal of the price floor by removing the requirement for a minimum auction reserve charge from the Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Act 2011.
I commend the bill to the House.
I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
On a very brief indulgence: these bills represent complete chaos on behalf of the government. I seek leave to table 11 quotes from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and others outlining why they believed a floor price was 'vital' to confidence.
That's an abuse.
It is not an abuse; the member for Flinders has the right to do it.
Leave not granted.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is also part of a package of bills that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
At present the equivalent carbon price imposed on certain liquid fuels after 1 July 2015 is based on the average auction price of domestic carbon units.
The Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 introduces a ‘per-tonne carbon price equivalent’. This provides an estimate of the effective carbon price faced by liable entities when the carbon pricing mechanism links to the European Union emissions trading scheme.
This bill amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 so that the per-tonne carbon price equivalent is applied to liquid fuels, instead of the average carbon unit auction price.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This is another bill which is part of the package of bills that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
At present the equivalent carbon price imposed on the import of synthetic greenhouse gases after 1 July 2015 is based on the benchmark average auction charge.
The Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 introduces a 'per-tonne carbon price equivalent'. This provides an estimate of the effective carbon price faced by liable entities when the carbon pricing mechanism links to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.
This bill amends the synthetic greenhouse gas legislation so that the per-tonne carbon price equivalent is applied to the import of synthetic greenhouse gas, instead of the benchmark average auction charge.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is another part of the package of bills amending certain aspects of the clean energy future plan.
At present the equivalent carbon price imposed on the manufacture of synthetic greenhouse gases after 1 July 2015 is based on the benchmark average auction charge.
The Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 introduces a 'per-tonne carbon price equivalent'. This provides an estimate of the effective carbon price faced by liable entities when the carbon pricing mechanism links to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.
This bill amends the synthetic greenhouse gas legislation so that the per-tonne carbon price equivalent is applied to the manufacture of synthetic greenhouse gas, instead of the benchmark average auction charge.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is the final part of a package of bills that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
The bill facilitates the removal of the price floor by removing the requirement for a minimum auction reserve charge from the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Act 2011.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That, in respect of the proceedings on the Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012, the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Amendment Bill 2012, the Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Amendment Bill 2012, the Excise Tariff Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012 and the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Amendment Bill 2012, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:
(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;
(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate, then without delay, in respect of all the bills:
(a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by opposition Members;
(b) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and
(c) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;
(3) if the second readings of the bills have been agreed to, messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for any of the bills being announced together;
(4) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on all the bills being taken together with:
(a) one question being put on all the Government amendments;
(b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by opposition Members;
(c) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and
(d) any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;
(5) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the remaining stages of all the bills together; and
(6) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill will introduce a number of measures to strengthen and streamline the Higher Education Support Act 2003, resulting in more effective and efficient administration of the Australian government's Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, schemes, namely FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. The bill will enable the government to act on recommendations made in the post-implementation review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme Final Report 2011 and its commitments made under the April 2012 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. It will position the government to deliver timely improvements to the HELP schemes, creating a more accessible, transparent, responsive and robust tertiary sector.
The bill will enhance the quality and accountability framework through new provisions that allow the minister to consider investigation reports from the national and non-referring jurisdiction education regulators when making a decision to approve, revoke or suspend approval under the HELP schemes. The bill will further strengthen the government's ability to manage risk to the administration of public moneys and better protect students by strengthening the suspension and revocation provisions for approved providers. This will ensure that decisions under the provisions of the act to revoke or suspend a low-quality provider can take effect on the day the notice is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments, offering increased protections to students.
The amendments will also improve the tertiary sector's ability to deliver education and training in a more responsive and flexible manner by moving the census date requirements into the legislative guidelines. This will allow the sector to offer rolling enrolments and be more responsive to student and industry needs without onerous administrative requirements. The bill will also allow for a managed trial of VET FEE-HELP for specified certificate IV level qualifications by amending the definition of a VET course of study.
Further, the bill will reduce complexity and duplication through consolidating and streamlining three sets of legislative guidelines into a single set. In doing so, provider obligations and responsibilities will be clarified and information further streamlined. Delegation powers will be enhanced to allow for the minister and secretary to delegate powers to an APS employee. This will ensure that programs and funding requirements under the act can continue uninterrupted regardless of which department holds responsibility for the schemes.
Finally, the bill will enable a streamlined approach to approvals and administrative compliance for low-risk applicants and providers already approved under the schemes. The amendments will allow the minister to determine a category of providers and financial reporting requirements for low-risk VET FEE-HELP applicants and approved providers. This approach will further reduce the administrative and regulatory burden placed on applicants and providers and encourage increased uptake of the scheme by quality providers, and ultimately students. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Further MySuper and Transparency Measures) Bill 2012 is the third tranche of legislation implementing the government MySuper and governance reforms as part of Stronger Super.
This bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992, the Corporations Act 2001 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to implement the remaining measures relating to MySuper, as well as introduce data collection and publication powers for APRA and disclosure requirements for trustees that were announced as part of Stronger Super. MySuper is a key part of the government’s Stronger Super reform package.
Stronger Super also includes reforms to:
MySuper will provide a simple, cost-effective default product that all Australians can rely upon. MySuper will be limited to a common set of features to make it easier for members, employers and other stakeholders to compare performance across MySuper products, placing downward pressure on fees.
This bill comprises seven schedules. Schedule 1 has new fee rules for superannuation funds that mean conflicted remuneration, such as commissions, cannot be charged in relation to MySuper products, that ban entry fees and limit exit fees, switching fees and buy/sell spreads to cost recovery in all superannuation funds and imposes parameters that must be complied with when a trustee agrees to a performance based fee with an investment manager in relation to a MySuper product. These rules ensure that members of MySuper products do not pay unnecessary fees, ensure that a trustee does not enter into performance fee arrangements that are not in the member’s best members and limit certain fees to ensure that they do not unfairly inhibit a member from making active choices.
Schedule 2 covers the insurance arrangements for MySuper products. Trustees will be required to provide members of a MySuper product with life and TPD insurance on an opt-out basis. This provides an important safety net to members in MySuper that may not actively consider their insurance needs.
Schedule 3 implements new data collection and publication powers for APRA in relation to superannuation and imposes new disclosure obligations on trustees, including publishing their full portfolio holdings and a product dashboard on their website. Transparency of key performance information is crucial to a competitive and efficient superannuation system. For this reason, APRA will have new data collection and publication powers in relation to superannuation. Members are entitled to information about their investments; therefore, superannuation funds will be required to disclose their full portfolio holdings and a product dashboard to provide key information to members at a glance. The government will consider broadening this requirement to other managed investments as part of its response to the parliamentary inquiry into the Trio collapse.
Schedule 4 makes consequential amendments to the Fair Work Act to ensure that only a fund that offers a MySuper product may be nominated in a modern award or enterprise agreement. This will ensure that employees that have their contributions directed to a fund nominated in a modern award or an enterprise agreement will benefit from having their contributions placed in a MySuper product if they do not wish to choose another superannuation product.
Schedule 5 exempts defined benefit funds and defined benefit arrangements from the requirements of the MySuper regime. This will allow defined benefit funds to continue to be used as a default fund by employers. Defined benefit members are entitled to benefits that are not altered by the charging of fees or the investment strategy adopted. Therefore, the MySuper regime is not designed to apply to defined benefit arrangements.
Schedule 6 requires trustees of superannuation funds to transfer the accrued default amounts of members to a MySuper product by 1 July 2017. Moving existing balances to MySuper will ensure that members are able to obtain the benefits of MySuper, in particular a ban on commissions, for their existing superannuation balance as well as for future contributions.
I am aware that there are some concerns with the definition of the amounts that must be transferred to MySuper. However, the government’s approach is consistent with the recommendations of the Cooper review and will allow many funds to simply convert their existing default investment options to a MySuper product. Treasury estimate that the definition in the bill could result in $90 billion more being moved to MySuper than the approach suggested by stakeholders. Based on the assumptions of the Cooper review, this translates to approximately $100 million per annum in fees being saved in the best interests of superannuation fund members.
Further, all members will be notified before a transfer occurs and will have the right to opt-out of the transfer. Therefore, no member is forced to transfer their balance to MySuper if they do not want to. Trustees will have up to four years to communicate with members about their options.
Schedule 7 introduces new authorisation requirements for eligible rollover funds. This will ensure that APRA is able to assess that eligible rollover funds are meeting their intended objective of reconnecting members with their lost superannuation and are promoting the financial interests of members.
Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various superannuation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's superannuation laws. Schedule 1 reinstates the temporary tax relief for merging superannuation funds, with some modifications. The tax relief will permit eligible entities to roll over unrealised gains or losses on revenue and capital assets and allow the transfer of realised revenue losses and capital losses. This will ensure that certain tax considerations are not an impediment to superannuation funds seeking to merge and consolidate in response to the Stronger Super reforms, which will deliver benefits to members from the efficiency generated by the reforms.
Schedule 2 amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to introduce a registration regime for auditors of self-managed superannuation funds. It delivers on a key part of the government's 23 June 2012 announcement of a new SMSF auditor registration framework. The government's super system review found that, while some approved auditors are subject to minimum competency standards through their professional association, not all approved auditors are subject to the same minimum competency standards, nor are they subject to the same enforcement actions.
Self-managed superannuation funds—SMSF sector—are the largest sector in the superannuation industry, at some $400 billion. The members of these funds are advised by a range of experts including lawyers, financial planners and accountants. A key role is played by the 11,000 or so SMSF auditors. They play a vital role in maintaining the integrity of a major sector of the superannuation system. Each year, SMSF trustees are required to appoint an approved auditor to audit the financial reports and the operations of the fund. The audit is required to assess the fund's overall compliance with the law and the fund's financial statements. The annual audit provides assurance to the government and the general public that SMSFs are complying with the sole purpose test, something that is particularly important given the amount of retirement savings held in SMSFs.
The amendments will introduce a registration regime for SMSF auditors, where auditors will be required to meet initial and ongoing requirements relating to their qualifications, competency and independence. Transitional arrangements are being developed as part of the regulations to give recognition to highly experienced, competent auditors, including registered company auditors.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be the registration body for SMSF auditors and will be responsible for setting competency standards and taking enforcement action against auditors who have not met their obligations. The Australian Taxation Office will monitor auditors' compliance with relevant standards and refer any non-compliant auditors to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for consideration of enforcement action. SMSF auditor registration will increase the assurance that can be placed on the SMSF audit by ensuring that SMSF auditors are competent to detect and report contraventions of the superannuation law. The legislation has been put together in consultation with members of the joint accounting bodies.
Schedule 3 amends the tax law to expand the existing reporting obligation for superannuation providers. Under the revised obligations, superannuation providers will be required to provide statements for all members who held an interest in the superannuation plan at any time during the reporting period, not just those for whom contributions are received, as is presently the case. The amendments will allow the ATO to display more comprehensive superannuation information to individuals and to facilitate the consolidation of inactive accounts with a low balance. To the extent this enables individuals to locate lost accounts, it will help improve individuals' retirement savings.
Schedule 4 of the Superannuation Laws Amendment (Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Efficiency Measures) Bill 2012 amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, the SI(S) Act, and the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997, the RSA Act, to improve the quality of information in the superannuation system and to facilitate fully effective e-commerce.
As part of the government's SuperStream package of reforms, a number of measures were announced to improve the efficiency of the superannuation system. The government legislated standards for superannuation transactions in June this year, and this legislation will ensure the effectiveness of these standards. It has been estimated that the Australian superannuation industry processes more than 100 million transactions annually. The potential gains to the system from effective e-commerce and superannuation are truly significant.
Currently, poor-quality information on members leads to difficulties in allocating contributions, unnecessary duplicate accounts and a large amount of lost and unclaimed superannuation. This legislation supports the industry in achieving the goals of effective e-commerce and improving information quality.
The Commissioner of Taxation will provide two key services: (1) a central register containing accurate and secure details of superannuation funds, which is critical to effective e-commerce, and (2) a tax file number validation service which can be used by employers and trustees to ensure the information they hold for their employees and members is correct.
It is estimated that the SuperStream proposals could save the industry and therefore members of superannuation funds up to $1 billion per year. Much of the benefit of these savings should flow through to members in the form of lower fees and charges.
Further details are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill provides for the imposition of fees relating to approved auditors of self-managed superannuation funds. In recognition of the important role self-managed superannuation fund auditors play in the regulatory arrangements for self-managed superannuation funds, the government accepted the recommendation of the super system review, also known as the Cooper review, to establish a registration regime for approved self-managed superannuation fund auditors. Self-managed superannuation fund auditor registration will increase the assurance that will be placed in the self-managed superannuation fund audit by ensuring that self-managed superannuation fund auditors are competent to detect and report contraventions of the superannuation law.
This bill imposes some fees to help recover the costs of establishing a self-managed superannuation fund auditor registration regime. Approved self-managed superannuation fund auditors will be required to pay fees for certain things as part of the registration process. It is expected that applying for registration will cost $100, undertaking a competency exam will cost another $100 and submitting an annual statement to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will cost $50.
Approved self-managed superannuation fund auditors will be liable for additional fees if they do not submit their annual statements on time or fail to notify the Australian Securities and Investments Commission of certain matters on time. The amount of these fees will depend on how late the statement or information is provided to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
Certain searches of the register of approved self-managed superannuation fund auditors and the register of disqualified self-managed superannuation fund auditors that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission keep may also be subject to fees. These fees are based on cost recovery and will depend on the resources required to find information for the requested search. However, online searches of the register will be free.
Full details of this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am very pleased today to be introducing the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012.
Amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991
This bill seeks to make minor amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 to correct typographical issues and obsolete references.
The amendments are minor and will improve the readability of the act. They do not change the intent of the act or alter any of the regulations.
Amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973
Prior to 1 July 2011, only trainee surgeons—with the Royal Australian College of Surgeons—could conduct a procedure under the direct supervision of a specialist in a private setting and have that service attract a Medicare rebate for the supervising surgeon.
The procedure was considered to have been performed by the supervising surgeon who retained the right to any bulk-billed Medicare benefit in relation to the procedure. This arrangement meant that trainee surgeons had greater access to clinical training opportunities.
A change to the regulations on 1 July 2011 made it possible for trainees of other approved professional medical colleges—not just surgeons—to also provide certain procedures under the direct supervision of a specialist.
Trainees in orthopaedic surgery, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynaecology, internal medicine and anaesthetics are among those who can now provide certain procedures in a private setting under direct supervision and have those procedures attract a Medicare rebate for the supervisor.
This further expands the country's training capacity for specialists with no additional cost to government.
The change has been a successful one, and is expected to continue to help alleviate some of the training capacity issues for trainee specialists which are being faced by health systems. The government considers that it is appropriate that the policy should be recognised at the level of primary legislation.
Amendments to the Human Services (Medicare) Act 1973
Under the National Health Reform Agreement, signed by the Commonwealth and all states and territories in August 2011, the Commonwealth committed to establishing new primary health care organisations, known as Medicare Locals, to drive improvements in Australia's primary health care system.
All 61 Medicare Locals are now established.
The amendments will enable Medicare Locals and other bodies seeking to use the term 'medicare' to apply for an authorisation to use the term without breaching the act.
Amendment of the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989
The Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 (the ICNA Act) establishes a system of notification and assessment of industrial chemicals to protect health, safety and the environment, to provide for registration of certain persons proposing to introduce industrial chemicals, and to enable making of national standards for cosmetics. The Department of Health and Ageing, through the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme, administers the ICNA Act.
This proposed minor amendment corrects a description of how chemicals are transhipped. It allows industry to decide on what is the most efficient short-term storage option while maintaining health and safety. It does not place any restriction on competition and does not place any additional requirements on business.
Under the ICNA Act, certain new industrial chemicals that represent a low risk are exempt from the notification and assessment provisions, in keeping with the best practice principle that the regulatory impost to industry should be in accordance with the risk posed. One such exemption relates to chemicals kept under the control of Customs during transhipment, where those chemicals are exported within 30 days of import.
The current ICNA Act includes an inaccurate description of how chemicals are kept under the control of Customs during transhipment, and the amendment will correct this problem without affecting the intent of the exemption provision.
There is broad stakeholder support across industry and the community for the proposed amendment, which has been developed in response to industry concerns and in consultation with industry, government and the community.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Health Security Amendment Bill 2012 amends the National Health Security Act 2007 to enhance Australia's obligations for securing certain biological agents such as anthrax and foot-and-mouth disease virus. These agents are called security sensitive biological agents (SSBAs).
The SSBA Regulatory Scheme includes stringent requirements relating to the notification of the type and location of SSBAs, along with standards that must be met by entities handling SSBAs. The standards relate to matters such as the secure handling, storage and transport of security sensitive biological agents along with personnel security requirements and risk management strategies.
Over the three years that the SSBA Regulatory Scheme has been operational, the government has worked closely with entities that handle SSBAs, along with other experts in the field, to ensure smooth administration of the legislation. A number of areas have been highlighted where improvements to the regulatory scheme might be made. The bill I am introducing today enhances the SSBA Regulatory Scheme in two important ways.
First, the proposed amendments provide a streamlined reporting scheme for entities, such as hospital diagnostic facilities, that are not registered under the SSBA Regulatory Scheme and only need to handle SSBAs for less than seven consecutive days, known as temporary handlings. These facilities do not register because they are unable to meet the SSBA standards for registered facilities and compliance would impose a large regulatory burden on them for such a short period of handling. The entities may be sent SSBAs to perform specific tests, for example antibiotic sensitivity testing, after which the SSBAs are sent to a registered facility or destroyed.
An entity that only handles SSBAs temporarily will be required to report the receipt of the SSBA and the purpose for handling the SSBA to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing (the secretary), within two business days of starting to handle the SSBA. These entities will also need to report the disposal (that is the transfer to a registered facility or destruction of the SSBA) which must occur within seven days of receipt or a longer period approved by the secretary. Specific SSBA standards will apply to the entity during the handling period to ensure the security of the agent is maintained during the temporary handling.
Second, the amendments will allow the secretary to better manage potential security risks for entities undertaking emergency facility maintenance. Entities may be required to move the SSBA out of the registered facility and into a storage area or an unregistered facility when the emergency occurs and may have to do so in a very short time frame to ensure the SSBA remains viable.
Under these measures, entities will be required to inform the secretary of the emergency arrangements including security measures and proposed time frames for completion. In order to ensure the security of the SSBA is maintained during the emergency maintenance, the secretary will be able to impose conditions such as a direction to the entity not to handle the SSBA for any purpose other than to store the SSBA, or impose a condition that if the repairs are not completed within a certain time frame, the SSBA must be moved to a registered facility. The secretary will also be able to suspend some or all regulatory requirements including application of the relevant areas of the SSBA standards, during the time taken to undertake the maintenance appropriate to each unique emergency maintenance situation.
The amending bill also makes some amendments to improve the operation of the legislation and provide greater clarity for those working with SSBAs.
The first of these changes relates to the imposing of conditions to ensure the security of SSBAs is maintained in facilities required to undertake corrective actions following an inspection.
Under the SSBA Regulatory Scheme, a failure to comply with the standards is dealt with by the issue of notices for compliance which define the required corrective actions and the time frames within which the entity is to achieve compliance. It is intended that the secretary should be able to impose conditions during the period of noncompliance on the entity's SSBA handlings based on any risks presented by the noncompliance. These conditions will assist in the reduction of risk during the time provided for corrective action to be taken.
The conditions would be guided by the general principle that when imposing conditions, the entity's circumstances are considered and the level of security applied is proportionate to the level of risk presented by the handling of the SSBA. The kinds of conditions that will be imposed will relate to the broad security areas included in the SSBA standards of physical security, including storage, personnel security and information security.
Other measures in the bill deal with the clarification of reporting requirements by registered entities for biological agents suspected to be an SSBA. These measures will ensure that registered entities undertaking in-house confirmatory testing complete the reporting cycle for suspected SSBAs and report negative confirmatory testing results from the in-house tests. Measures will also ensure that the application of exemptions for certain entities are consistent between known and suspected SSBAs.
These changes have been the subject of consultation with agencies responsible for obtaining and assessing information about the risks and threats posed by biological agents (such as ASIO and other intelligence agencies), public and animal health laboratories, state and territory government agencies and other experts in SSBA.
I am confident that the bill addresses the issues identified during the operational period of the scheme and from stakeholder liaison, and ensures that we continue to deliver on our international commitments and the national imperative to actively improve our capacity to maintain adequate controls on security sensitive biological agents.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to deal with the problem of noncitizens working without permission in Australia, through the creation of effective laws to sanction persons who allow to work, or refer to a third person for work, those unlawful noncitizens and lawful noncitizens who do not have that permission.
This bill implements the key recommendations of the Howells 2010 review of the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Act 2007.
Sanctions for employers of illegal workers have been mooted since a government-commissioned review of illegal work in Australia drew attention to the problem in 1999.
In 2007, the previous government introduced criminal sanctions to deal with employers and labour suppliers who knowingly or recklessly engage or refer for work unlawful noncitizens and lawful noncitizens who do not have permission to work in Australia. Administrative warning notices and an education campaign were also implemented.
A review of those measures, conducted by barrister Mr Stephen Howells in 2010, found that those criminal sanctions have been wholly ineffective as a deterrent to illegal work hire practices. Those measures have not provided a practical mechanism to instil in businesses the need, motivation and wherewithal to comply.
The Howells review recommended implementation of the scheme, with modification, originally recommended in 1999—that is, graduated tiers of education, warnings, infringement notices, non-fault civil penalties and criminal offences.
The recommended scheme is designed to encourage voluntary compliance by businesses (through education and deterrence) and where this does not occur, provide effective sanctions.
The problem of illegal work remains. Recent estimates put the number of unlawful noncitizens and lawful noncitizens working without permission in Australia at around 100,000 people. This is despite the fact that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship continues to have considerable success in locating illegal workers.
The continuing practice of allowing or referring unlawful noncitizens to work or lawful noncitizens without the required permission to work must be tackled for a number of reasons.
Whilst the number of workers involved may be relatively small compared to the overall Australian labour force, it remains a serious issue as it undermines the integrity of Australia's migration program and has, in the worst instances, resulted in the exploitation of vulnerable people.
It can place Australian businesses engaging non-citizen workers without permission to work at a competitive advantage, thereby penalising those employers who do the right thing.
In a competitive labour market, its effect is to reduce taxation revenue as well as work opportunities for Australians and those noncitizens with permission to work.
There has been extensive stakeholder consultation on this problem, with industry, unions and the community over the course of the past 13 years. More recently, the government has consulted on the recommendations of the Howells review, which informed our decision to implement the Howells recommendations announced in December 2011.
We also consulted on an exposure draft of this bill in August 2012.
There has been a lot of talk on the best way to effectively address the problem of illegal work. This bill deals with the practical actions that are necessary to create real, effective tools to deal with this problem.
This bill fills in the missing pieces in the graduated sanctions recommended by Mr Howells. The bill creates non-fault civil penalty provisions for allowing to work, or referring to a third person for work, unlawful noncitizens and noncitizens who do not have permission to work in Australia. It creates capacity to issue an infringement notice as an alternative to court proceedings under the civil penalty provisions. Note it will not be necessary to prove fault in an application for a civil penalty order.
The measures in this bill supplement a refocused, revamped employer education and awareness strategy; and the existing Illegal Worker Warning Notice scheme currently administered by the department.
Thus a tiered enforcement model is created by first informing and educating businesses on the requirement that only noncitizens with a visa permitting work are entitled to work.
Then, where departmental officers identify a business or employer who is not complying with the legislation, they will usually issue an Illegal Worker Warning Notice.
Subsequently infringement notices may be issued where repeated noncompliance with the legislation is detected.
Finally, proceedings for a civil penalty order or prosecutions for criminal offences may be pursued where persistent noncompliance occurs and/or where serious breaches of the legislation are detected.
Having regard to the concerns of business, Mr Howells recommended creation of statutory defences where a business took reasonable steps at reasonable times to check that a worker or a prospective worker has permission to work. The bill gives effect to this by establishing that a reasonable step can involve checking a computer system, as prescribed by regulations, or other steps such as viewing original documentation which evidences that the noncitizen holds a visa and has permission to work, such as a visa label in the non-citizen's passport.
The government intends to prescribe the Visa Entitlement Verification Online system, known as VEVO, as a computer system in the Migration Regulations for this purpose. VEVO is designed for individuals and business to check whether a noncitizen holds a visa and the conditions (if any) that attach to that visa. VEVO is administered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and is available for use online, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The bill implements another recommendation of Mr Howells which recognises that an employer or a referrer may not and should not be expected to know whether a noncitizen worker is also working elsewhere. Therefore, the bill restricts potential sanctions to circumstances where a noncitizen is working or is referred for work in breach of a work related visa condition solely because of doing the work for that employer.
The bill also encompasses measures intended to address the myriad non-conventional work arrangements that may exist where unscrupulous businesses seek to avoid their legal obligations. These include sham contracting, informal labour hire and use of illegal workers by various entities within a conglomerate where employers seek to misrepresent employment relationships to avoid paying legal minimum rates of pay, tax and entitlements.
By amending the definition of 'allows to work', the bill addresses those more complex business relationships which disguise illegal work hire practices. The expanded definition of 'allows to work' will broaden those relationships to include a person who participates in any arrangement, or a series of arrangements, for the performance of work by the worker for themselves, or another participant in the arrangement or any such arrangement.
The bill also extends civil and criminal liability for the employer sanctions provisions to a variety of entities such as individuals, bodies corporate (including executive officers in certain circumstances), partners in a partnership and members of an unincorporated association's committee of management. While this affords additional protection to vulnerable workers, it provides the necessary safeguards to ensure that only those involved in a contravention of a work related offence or a work related civil penalty provision will be penalised.
Finally, as Mr Howells recommended, the bill will provide authority for authorised departmental officers to gather evidence of suspected breaches of the employer sanctions provisions. These new investigation powers will allow authorised officers to obtain a search warrant from a magistrate or judge where the magistrate or judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is, or may be, evidential material on the premises.
The warrant will empower the authorised officer to enter and search premises, ask questions, require the production of documents, and seize material relevant to a work-related offence or the contravention of a work-related provision.
Only persons clearly linked to a suspected breach of the employer sanctions provisions will be directly affected by the exercise of a search warrant.
It is expected that departmental officers would seek to use this power in the more serious cases where it is likely that an application for a civil penalty order would be made or criminal prosecution would be pursued.
In the majority of cases, evidence would be obtained by the less intrusive notice to produce power. This power enables the secretary to require, in writing, that a person give information or produce documents if the secretary has reason to believe that the person has information or a document that is relevant to a possible work-related offence or a possible contravention of a work-related provision.
Essentially, the reforms contained in this bill are critical to establishing an effective regime which will actively discourage illegal work hire practices and effectively sanction employers and labour suppliers that persist in non-compliant behaviour.
This bill gives effect to legislative measures that are only one part of the overall strategy to deal with illegal work. There is, and will continue to be, an information and education campaign to assist businesses to understand how they can comply with their obligations under the legislation. Illegal Worker Warning Notices will continue to be utilised to provide formal warning to businesses before infringement notices are given, applications for civil penalty orders are sought or prosecution proceedings are initiated.
This bill addresses the government's long-held concern about the serious matter of illegal work in Australia and demonstrates this government's determination to tackle the difficult issues associated with this practice.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The vast majority of Commonwealth law enforcement officers are good, honest, hardworking people.
But it is an unfortunate fact that criminals target law enforcement officers.
Organised crime groups actively target our law enforcement officers because of the nature of the work that they do—and because of their access to sensitive information.
It happens all around the world.
There is no place for corruption in the public sector, and that is why I have brought this legislation forward. That is why I have made it one of my top priorities.
Where we find corruption, we have to weed it out.
This bill is an important step in this process.
It will give our law enforcement agencies more power to prevent corruption, and increase the tools and the powers they have to weed it out where they find it.
The bill contains three key measures:
1. It introduces targeted integrity testing for the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Officers suspected of corrupt conduct;
2. It doubles the number of law enforcement agencies covered by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity; and
3. It strengthens the powers of the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to deal with suspected corruption.
I will outline each of these measures.
Integrity t esting
An integrity test is an operation designed to test whether an official will respond to a simulated or controlled situation in a manner that is inconsistent with an agency's standards of integrity.
Examples of integrity testing include leaving valuable goods at a simulated crime scene to test whether an officer steals the item, or putting false information in a database to catch a person suspected of unlawfully disclosing information.
Officers in state police forces are subject to integrity testing.
This includes New South Wales, where testing was introduced following the Wood royal commission, and Queensland, where testing is conducted by the Crime and Misconduct Commission.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity recommended the introduction of targeted integrity testing at a Commonwealth level last year.
The power of integrity testing is that it puts fear in the mind of the corrupt. It is a psychological war against corruption.
They will need to think twice before accepting a bribe from a criminal, because that criminal could be an undercover police officer.
The committee made a number of recommendations regarding the form that Commonwealth integrity testing should take—and safeguards that should be included. I thank them for their work.
The government accepted these recommendations, and this bill gives effect to this.
Only senior officers of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and Customs will be able to authorise integrity tests.
The integrity commissioner will also be able to authorise integrity testing to support a corruption investigation.
An integrity test will only be able to be authorised where the senior officer has a reasonable suspicion that an offence, punishable by at least 12 months imprisonment, has been or is likely to be committed.
Integrity testing is not 'entrapment' or 'inducement'.
The inherent principle of integrity testing is that there be clear and equal opportunity for a person who is subject to the test to pass the test or fail the test.
Entrapment is where a person is induced to commit an offence that they would not otherwise have committed.
Tests will be carefully designed and carried out in a way which upholds this distinction.
It is important that, in conducting integrity tests, law enforcement agencies have available to them the full suite of covert powers that they otherwise have at their disposal for investigating serious and organised crime.
This was also recommended by the parliamentary joint committee as part of its inquiry.
For this reason the bill contains amendments to the controlled operations provisions in the Crimes Act and to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and Surveillance Devices Act to ensure these powers are available in an integrity testing context.
The use of these powers will remain subject to existing safeguards.
Expansion of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity ' s jurisdiction
Second, doubling the number of law enforcement agencies covered by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity was established in 2007 to detect, disrupt and deter potential corruption in federal law enforcement agencies.
It currently oversights the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and Customs, and deals with corruption issues from the former National Crime Authority.
This bill extends the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to cover the Australian Transactions Reporting and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), the CrimTrac Agency, and prescribed staff members in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
These law enforcement agencies should be subject to the additional oversight that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity provides.
The work performed by these agencies also makes them a target of organised crime.
ACLEI's new jurisdiction will commence on 1 July 2013 to enable appropriate compliance and administrative arrangements to be put in place prior to this occurring.
The government will also provide the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity with additional resourcing to meet the costs of this expanded jurisdiction.
In February this year, I as Minister for Justice also commissioned a review of the first year of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity's oversight of Customs.
The government received the report from this review in April.
It recommended:
1. That ACLEI explore the scope for seconding suitably senior and experienced staff from law enforcement agencies to assure ACLEI maintains up-to-date major investigation experience and expertise
2. That the integrity commissioner continue to build an understanding among ACLEI staff of ACLEI's role and the need to work jointly with other agencies
3. That ACLEI establish a regular forum for relevant Customs and ACLEI staff to meet to discuss integrity issues
4. That funding go towards completing ACLEI's information management project within the next 12 months
5. That ACLEI work with Customs on communications and training strategies around increasing awareness of ACLEI's role and improving lessons learned from current integrity investigations
6. Measures to refine ACLEI’s processes for managing and investigating integrity matters referred by law enforcement agencies.
The government has agreed to all of the recommendations made in the report.
As a result of this review, the government has also doubled the annual funding provided to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity for its work in oversighting Customs, to allow it to undertake further significant activities in prevention and case work.
Strengthening of the powers of the Chief Executive Officer of Customs
The third element of this bill deals with strengthening of the powers of the chief executive officer of Customs.
In February this year I also wrote to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, the CEO of the Australian Crime Commission and the CEO of Customs and Border Protection outlining my expectations in detecting, disrupting and preventing corruption.
I also asked for their advice about further action needed to strengthen the corruption resistance of Commonwealth enforcement agencies.
The agencies have responded with the following anticorruption measures.
First, the Australian Federal Police. The Australian Federal Police are:
The Australian Crime Commission are:
Customs and Border Protection has conducted a review of their integrity framework.
This work was completed in June this year.
It recommended a range of reforms to strengthen Customs’ anticorruption culture, prevent corruption and weed it out.
This includes:
This bill contains additional measures focused on improving the integrity culture within Customs.
Criminals and organised crime groups are always changing.
As they change, our law enforcement agencies need to change as well.
Customs and Border Protection are an important part of this.
Their work is just as important as the work done by the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission.
And they are just as likely to be targeted by organised criminals.
That is why it is essential that they have the same powers and tools to tackle corruption and weed it out.
This bill contains a series of measures to bring Customs and Border Protection's powers to act against corruption and misconduct into line with those of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police.
This includes:
The Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission both currently undertake drug and alcohol testing.
Officers of Customs and Border Protection operate and respond in similar surroundings to officers of these agencies.
It is essential that they also be subject to the same standards of integrity.
Drug and alcohol testing will first focus on high-risk areas of Customs, including where officers perform similar functions to and work in close proximity to other law enforcement officers who are subject to drug and alcohol testing.
Officers that are under the influence of drugs or alcohol not only pose a safety risk to co-workers—they are also potentially a target for organised crime groups that are seeking to infiltrate law enforcement.
An officer using illicit drugs may be willing to undertake 'favours' for crime groups in return for the supply of illicit drugs.
Identification of this behaviour is an important part of improving corruption resistance and tackling organised crime.
This bill will also provide a new power for the CEO of Customs to make a declaration, following the termination of a staff member's employment, that the termination was for serious misconduct.
The effect of this declaration will enable the terminated employee to be immediately removed from the workplace.
Judicial review will remain available to terminated officials under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, whereby the Federal Court can consider the lawfulness of the CEO’s decision.
This power replicates powers currently available to the heads of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission.
It is not a power that will be exercised lightly, and will be reserved for serious cases of misconduct.
The decision made by the chief executive officer will follow an assessment and advice from a panel independent of the chief executive officer.
The bill will also provide an ability for the chief executive officer of Customs to issue written orders to staff requiring them to report any suspected instances of misconduct.
It is important that law enforcement agencies develop a strong culture of resisting corruption.
Corruption can thrive in an environment where it is the norm to turn a blind eye to misconduct.
This measure will ensure that where an employee of Customs observes an incident which may involve misconduct, he or she is in no doubt as to what the appropriate action should be.
Conclusion
This is a major package of reforms to target corruption and give our law enforcement agencies the power to prevent it from happening and, when it does happen, to weed it out.
As I said earlier, there is no place for corruption in the public sector.
I choose these words carefully. There is a darker side of the human condition that is vulnerable to corruption. Our job is to make the public sector as corruption-resistant as it can be.
That’s why I have made this a top priority.
This is the first tranche of reforms I will bring forward.
There is more work to do.
I am working on those reforms now and I will bring those reforms forward when they are finalised.
I commend this important bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws.
Schedule 1 makes a small but important amendment to the definition of ‘eligible no-till seeder’ for the purpose of the conservation tillage refundable tax offset in subdivision 385-J of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Currently, in order to access the offset, a primary producer must purchase a no-till seeding tool and a cart.
This requirement was included following consultation on the initial measure to ensure that farmers could access the offset on the cart as well. However, it is the ground-engaging tool component that delivers the benefits of conservation tillage practices, while the cart simply carries the seed and fertiliser.
Concerns raised since that initial legislation was passed suggested that the requirement to purchase both the cart and the tool together creates a financial barrier to participation in the tax offset or, conversely, could encourage wasteful behaviour.
The amendment remedies this by ensuring that an eligible no-till seeder can comprise either the tool alone or the combination of the cart and the tool. The measure will apply from the same time as the original measure, 1 July 2012, to the benefit of primary producers wishing to upgrade just their seeding tool.
Schedule 2 phases out the mature-age worker tax offset (MAWTO) from 1 July 2012 for taxpayers who were not already 55 or older on 30 June 2012—that is, those born on or after 1 July 1957.
Those currently eligible because they were aged 55 years or older on 30 June 2012 are unaffected by the change and remain eligible for the MAWTO.
By closing off the MAWTO to new recipients and investing in better targeted participation programs the government will improve value for money while protecting those who have built the MAWTO into their household budgets.
The government is encouraging workforce participation by older Australians through the $26 million Mature Age Participation—Job Seeker Assistance Program. This will provide eligible mature age job seekers aged 55 and over with a peer based environment in which to develop their IT skills, to undertake job specific training and to prepare for work.
The government’s $41 million response to the final report of the Advisory Panel on the Economic Potential of Senior Australians includes $10 million for new jobs bonuses that will encourage businesses to employ older Australians who want to stay in the workforce. The $1,000 bonuses will be paid to employers who recruit and retain a mature age job seeker for three months.
The government is also providing a $15.6 million extension of the successful Corporate Champions program to provide support to employers who wish to promote mature aged employment at their workplace.
Schedule 3 amends the excise law by putting in place a robust and sustainable compliance regime for gaseous fuels—that is, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG)—that recognises that the fuel tax regime applied to these fuels is different from that applying to liquid fuels.
The liquid fuels―petrol and diesel―are all subject to fuel tax before leaving licensed premises and entering the market. Fuel tax is subsequently removed if the fuel is used for non-transport purposes by way of fuel tax credits.
However, LPG and LNG that are destined for non-transport use are subject to automatic remissions of tax while non-transport use CNG receives an exemption when it enters the market.
As a result of the different approach for gaseous fuels where untaxed gaseous fuels can be held on unlicensed premises, a different administrative approach is required to ensure that fuel excise is paid when it should be.
The amendments ensure that for duty-free gaseous fuels there are requirements on suppliers, whether licensed or unlicensed, for record-keeping and providing access to ATO officials. There is also an appropriate penalty regime to encourage compliance.
This regime will have lower compliance costs for the gaseous fuels industry than applying fuel tax to all gaseous fuels that enter the Australian market, with subsequent fuel tax credits where appropriate. Businesses that currently comply with their excise and excise-equivalent duty obligations should already be keeping the required records.
The remaining amendments in schedule 3 clarify the tax treatment of gaseous fuels used in forklifts and make it clear that gaseous fuel not directly used in fuel manufacture is subject to duty.
The amendments in schedule 4 make clear how fuel blends will be treated in the future. This is done by clarifying the Commissioner of Taxation's power to make legislative instruments to deal with these situations, rather than relying on legislative rules for exemption. This will provide certainty for the industry, as well as a more flexible and robust approach.
The amendments commence on 1 December 2012.
Schedule 5 amends the list of deductible gift recipients (DGRs) in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Taxpayers can claim income tax deductions for certain gifts to organisations with DGR status. DGR status will assist the listed organisation to attract public support for their activities.
Schedule 5 adds one new organisation to the act, namely, the Diamond Jubilee Trust Australia. The Diamond Jubilee Trust Australia has been established to raise funds in Australia for the commemoration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee. It will collect funds for the purpose of delivering charitable projects for the support and advancement of individuals of all ages, with a focus on the poor and disadvantaged, through supporting the work of the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust in the UK.
Schedule 6 amends the wine equalisation tax producer rebate provisions to ensure that a wine producer cannot claim a rebate for wine used in manufacture, unless the previous producer or supplier provides a notice that a previous producer is not entitled to the rebate on that wine.
The changes protect the integrity of the rebate by removing the opportunity existing under current legislation for multiple rebates to be claimed on the same quantity of wine. The government has responded to the wine industry's concerns about inappropriate access to the rebate.
The amendments reduce the amount of rebate a producer can claim for acquired wine used in manufacture, unless a notice is received. The amendments provide a voluntary system of notification, where notices state the extent to which the rebate has not been claimed on a sale of wine.
The amendments also prevent multiple claims of the rebate with respect to wine purchased from a New Zealand participant.
The amendments apply to assessable dealings on or after 1 December 2012 or the day on which this act receives royal assent, whichever is the later.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce a bill to amend a number of Commonwealth acts across several portfolios, including the Corporations Act, as part of the government's commitment to implement the directors' liability reform—a reform of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy.
This reform commits all jurisdictions to establishing a nationally consistent and principled approach to the imposition of personal criminal liability on directors and corporate officers for corporate fault. The initiative aims to remove regulatory burdens on directors and corporate officers that cannot be justified on public policy grounds, and to minimise inconsistency between Australian jurisdictions in the way personal liability for corporate fault is imposed in Australian laws.
This reform, agreed to by COAG in November 2008, followed earlier reviews that had recommended reform.
Calls for reform stemmed from the recognition that there appeared to be an increasing tendency for personal liability provisions to be introduced in Australian law as a matter of course and without robust justification.
These provisions had the potential to operate in a manner that was both unfair and inefficient—unfair in the sense that an individual could face a criminal penalty for a breach of the law by a corporation when the individual had no knowledge of or control over the breach, and inefficient to the extent that company directors could face excessive risk of personal criminal liability, which may detract from their strategic and entrepreneurial responsibilities.
A further concern was that inconsistencies in the standards of personal responsibility both within and across jurisdictions were resulting in undue complexity and a lack of clarity about responsibilities and requirements for compliance.
For example, directors and corporate officers have been held to be personally liable in one jurisdiction for an act by a company, but not in another, or been held personally liable for an act by a company in day-to-day business operations, over which they could not reasonably be expected to exercise control.
To address these concerns, COAG endorsed a three-step approach to reforming derivative liability in Australia.
Firstly, COAG endorsed principles to guide jurisdictions when imposing personal liability for corporate fault. Guidelines were also developed to provide greater clarity and consistency in the way the COAG principles would apply.
Secondly, all jurisdictions would undertake a thorough audit of their legislation against these principles and recommend amendments to bring them into line with the principles.
The outcomes of the audits by the Commonwealth, states and territories were also collectively reviewed to ensure that the principles had been applied appropriately.
Thirdly, jurisdictions would commit to implementing the audit outcomes by introducing legislation to make any necessary amendments to their laws by the end of 2012, and to apply the COAG principles when drafting future legislation.
The COAG principles and guidelines, which have guided the amendments in this bill, are concerned with personal liability provisions that hold directors and other corporate officers criminally liable because an offence has been committed by the corporation. They are not concerned with circumstances where such officers may be held liable as a result of their personal involvement in the commission of an offence.
While recognising the need for a more principled and consistent approach to the imposition of personal liability for corporate fault, this need has been balanced against the importance of holding corporate officers directly accountable to the community for the actions of their company, where there are important public policy considerations at stake. Personal liability would typically be justified in circumstances where directors and corporate officers have been negligent in relation to their company's contravention, resulting in significant public harm, and where the liability of the corporation is unlikely on its own to sufficiently promote compliance.
Examples of significant public harm include corporate misconduct which could result in significant harm to the national economy, to public health, or to vulnerable persons. For this reason, a number of offences that provide personal criminal liability for corporate fault will remain in the law.
In assessing the appropriateness of the directors' liability provisions in the Commonwealth legislation against the reform principles, we have taken into account a number of factors—including the seriousness of the harm a corporate offence would cause, the effectiveness of only penalising the corporation, and the general appropriateness of punishing the individual for the conduct of a corporation.
To give effect to the COAG directors' liability reform commitment, the bill removes a number of provisions in Commonwealth legislation—such as in the Corporations Act and the Therapeutic Goods Act. The bill also reforms various provisions either to remove criminal penalties, or to make clear the circumstances in which criminal penalties will apply.
MINCO Approval
The Ministerial Council for Corporations has been consulted in relation to amendments to the Corporations Act, and has approved the amendments contained in this bill.
Summing Up
In summing up—the Personal Liability for Corporate Fault Reform Bill amends Commonwealth legislation to bring it into alignment with the COAG principles and guidelines for the imposition of personal criminal liability for corporate fault. This bill will ensure that a person is only made criminally liable for the fault of a corporation where it is fair and reasonable to do so after taking into account:
This reform, once implemented by all jurisdictions, will significantly reduce the overall number of laws containing directors' liability provisions nationally.
This will reduce the regulatory compliance burden on businesses, while at the same time retaining laws that are necessary to ensure that company directors and other corporate officers take reasonable steps to ensure that their companies comply with their obligations under the law.
This is an important red tape reduction that will benefit all Australian businesses. In particular, the application of a consistent set of principles by the Commonwealth and all states and territories will provide greater certainty for companies that are subject to both Commonwealth and state or territory laws, and those that trade in multiple jurisdictions, thus helping to promote a more seamless national economy. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Upgrade of on-base housing for Defence at Larrakeyah Barracks, Darwin, Northern Territory.
Defence Housing Australia proposes upgrades of on-base housing for Defence at Larrakeyah Barracks, Darwin, Northern Territory. The project will upgrade 48 older houses located in the residential housing precinct on Larrakeyah Barracks, Darwin, to bring them up to the 2006 Defence minimum standard. These houses are from a portfolio of nearly 1,700 dwellings managed by Defence Housing Australia in Darwin to meet the housing needs of Defence members and their families posted to the Darwin area. The proposed upgrade project does not increase dwelling numbers on Larrakeyah Barracks. As the project involves upgrading existing housing, disruption to the local community will be minimised.
Defence and Defence Housing Australia have evaluated options and jointly agreed that the upgrade of 48 dwellings on Larrakeyah Barracks is economically viable and represents good value for money. The houses are suitable for upgrading and will provide a well-located housing precinct that will serve Defence families for the next 20 to 30 years. The estimated overall project cost is approximately $25 million, including GST, contingency and escalation costs but excluding the cost of the land. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in February 2013 and be completed by April 2015.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Upgrade of Housing for Defence at RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory.
Defence Housing Australia proposes to undertake an upgrade of housing for Defence at RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory. The project will upgrade a further 131 on-base houses to bring them up to the 2006 Defence minimum standard. The range of work on each house varies but may include new kitchens, new bathrooms, living room extensions, new bedrooms and double garages. Once upgraded, the total of 193 houses will greatly improve the amenity of Defence families living in this remote area. The upgraded on-base dwellings will offer a standard of amenity likely to attract and retain Defence members and their families in this remote area.
The work will be completed in two stages, the first upgrading 68 houses, the second upgrading 63 houses. The estimated overall project cost is approximately $57 million, including GST, contingency and escalation costs but excluding the land cost. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in April 2013 and be completed by December 2015.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
Base Infrastructure Works Project under the Base Security Improvement Program.
Security at Defence sites remains a high priority for the government and for the Department of Defence. Defence continues to review and improve its protective security arrangements to ensure that its most valuable assets—people—remain safe and able to conduct their important role. The $203.502 million base infrastructure works project is part of the wider Defence Base Security Improvement Program. It proposes to deliver a range of infrastructure enhancements to 16 sites.
This project is part of Defence's response to the government's 2009 review of the Defence protective security arrangements. These enhancements have been designed specifically to reduce the risk to Defence personnel of the possibility of terrorist attack. The protective measures include the provision of alert and surveillance systems, electronic access control and detection systems, improved command, monitoring and management facilities, as well as enhanced entrance and reception facilities.
The infrastructure solutions delivered by this project have been developed in conjunction with a range of other protective security improvements which are being implemented across the entire Defence estate in Australia. These include changes to legislation and policy, procedural improvements and the introduction of armed response capabilities at some sites, plus other minor infrastructure works. Defence is working closely with local planning authorities as well as the relevant road and traffic authorities to ensure that any disruptions during construction are minimised.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to begin in early 2013 and is planned to be completed by mid-2015. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
Moorebank Units Relocation, Holsworthy, New South Wales.
The Moorebank Units Relocation project proposes to relocate 13 Defence units and associated Defence facilities, the largest of which is the Army School of Military Engineering, from the Commonwealth owned but currently Defence occupied site for the future intermodal terminal at Moorebank to neighbouring Holsworthy Barracks in New South Wales. In addition to the provision of facilities for the relocated units, several facilities are also to be provided to enable the relocation and to achieve an efficient consolidated-facility solution at Holsworthy Barracks when considered over the whole of life. The enabling facilities include a new mess, a physical fitness complex, a chapel and facilities for elements of the 5th Brigade currently located at Holsworthy. In addition the project will improve the functionality and capability of Holsworthy Barracks by replacing a substantial amount of inadequate and non-compliant infrastructure and engineering services well past their design and economic life to meet the needs of the new facilities to be delivered.
The project will provide new working, instructional and living-in facilities for the School of Military Engineering, other relocated Defence units and aligned organisations. The project will also upgrade security and access arrangements at the northern entry to Holsworthy Barracks, including a new intersection on Heathcote Road approximately 500 metres east of the current intersection configuration. This will address traffic congestion in the existing location by separating Holsworthy Barracks from the Holsworthy railway station and residential access.
Redundant facilities beyond their economic life in the vicinity of the proposed new works will be demolished and realise operational savings. This capital investment in the project will have economic benefits for the Sydney region and local industry, with significant opportunities for subcontractors and the construction industry over the next three years. The estimated out-turned cost of the proposed work is $870 million plus GST.
In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence immediately, in October this year, and is planned to be completed by late 2015. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
High Voltage Electrical Distribution Upgrade, Liverpool Military Area, New South Wales.
The $19.6 million Liverpool High Voltage Electrical Distribution Upgrade project proposes to provide increased electrical supply and an upgraded electrical distribution network in order to support existing and planned growth of infrastructure and facilities within the Liverpool Military Area. The project will upgrade and replace inadequate, outdated and non-compliant electrical infrastructure and subsequently improve the overall capability and functionality of the Liverpool Military Area.
In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in early 2013 and is planned to be completed by mid-2014. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
Development and construction of housing for Defence members and their families at Kellyville, Sydney, New South Wales.
Defence Housing Australia proposes to develop a four-hectare greenfield property at Withers Road, Kellyville in New South Wales. The site is approximately 21 kilometres from the Parramatta CBD, 47 kilometres from the Sydney CBD and 24 kilometres from RAAF Base Richmond. DHA purchased this land from the private market via a private treaty in late 2011. The site was selected due to its close proximity to established shopping and service facilities at Rouse Hill and its central location between RAAF Base Richmond and the Parramatta CBD.
The proposal will involve development of the site over two stages, with stage 1 consisting of general civil and road works for the development of 65 serviced allotments and stage 2 consisting of the construction of 34 dwellings for Defence personnel use in the form of 26 integrated town houses and eight detached dwellings. The estimated overall project cost is $21.85 million, including GST and excluding the cost of the land. The cost of the land will be met by DHA and recovered through the sale of surplus lots and the DHA sale and lease-back program.
In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, civil construction is expected to commence in April 2013 with dwelling construction to be completed by December 2014. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's third report of 2012, entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: Bills and Legislative Instruments introduced 10-14 September 2012—Report, September 2012.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—This third report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reflects the committee's consideration of 12 bills and 113 legislative instruments introduced during the period 10 September to 14 September 2012. The committee has decided that eight of the bills considered do not require further scrutiny as they do not appear to give rise to any human rights concerns and has decided to seek further information in relation to three bills before forming a view with regard to their compatibility with human rights.
The committee notes that one bill appears to have been introduced without a statement of compatibility. The committee considers that this bill does not appear to raise any human rights concerns. However, the committee will draw the minister's attention to the requirement in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 that each bill and legislative instrument introduced into the parliament must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility.
Statements of compatibility must be provided for all bills and all legislative instruments regardless of whether the proposed legislation is considered to raise human rights issues or not. The majority of instruments considered by the committee in this report do not appear to raise any human rights concerns and are accompanied by statements of compatibility that are adequate. The committee will seek further information in relation to one legislative instrument and will send advisory letters in relation to the adequacy of a number of statements of compatibility.
The committee observes that there is a tendency to provide similar or generic statements of compatibility for instruments that are very similar in purpose. The committee has no concerns with the use of generic statements of compatibility per se and notes that some largely generic statements, such as those accompanying the set of vocational education and training provider notices of approval considered by the committee in this report, appear to adequately meet the committee's requirements.
On behalf of the committee I stress the importance of the statement providing information that is specific to the instrument in question. The statement should clearly state the purpose of the instrument and, where rights are engaged, the analysis of the engagement should relate to the effect of the instrument. The committee has observed that some statements have discussed the engagement of rights in terms of the overarching policy or program without reference to the impact of the instrument itself. In such circumstances the committee will continue to write to the relevant ministers in an advisory capacity to offer guidance with regard to the preparation of future statements.
Similarly, the committee has no concerns with brief statements of compatibility in circumstances in which no rights are engaged. The committee notes that a significant number of the instruments considered by the committee to date make technical or machinery changes which do not engage rights. Many of these, such as the Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determinations considered in this report, have been accompanied by very brief statements that still manage to address the committee's requirements.
However, the committee has considered a number of brief statements of compatibility that have fallen short of its expectations. I therefore emphasise that where no rights are engaged the committee still expects that reasons should be given to support this conclusion. This is particularly important where such a conclusion may not be self-evident from the description of the objective provided in the statement of compatibility.
In my first statement to the House in June this year, I noted the very comprehensive and useful source material prepared by the Attorney-General's Department and available on the department's website and indicated that the committee intended to provide guidance material of its own to complement this material. I therefore draw the attention of the House to the committee's practice note 1 in appendix 3 to this the third report and available on the committee's website.
This first practice note is intended to assist people to understand the way in which the committee is approaching the task of scrutinising bills and legislative instruments and to provide guidance on the committee's expectations with regard to the information that should be provided in statements of compatibility. The committee intends to publish further practice notes in due course on other aspects of its work.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank ministers, members and senators for the cooperative way in which they have responded to the committee's requests for clarification and further information during the course of its examination of specific bills and instruments. These timely and often comprehensive responses have greatly assisted the committee in its work.
It is a couple of days short of six months since the first meeting of the committee. The committee's work has been characterised by the collegiate manner in which the membership has gone about its legislated tasks. I thank my colleagues on the committee for this attitude to their work. It is truly the work of parliamentarians. The committee would wish me to place on record our thanks to the secretariat: Jeanette Radcliffe, secretary; Ms Ranuka Thilagaratnam, principal research officer; and Lauren McDougall, executive assistant. This is a small secretariat that has assisted the committee in making sure we are progressing, in a way that reflects the intent of the legislation, the pursuit of an understanding of human rights as it applies to the Australian circumstance. Without their help, the committee could not have been as successful as it has been so far.
by leave—I rise to support the statement of the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee, in discharging its responsibility, considers all facets of the work we do. The members of the committee consider the bills, which then go on to become legislation that impacts on the lives of all Australians, in the context of the instruments of the UN conventions. The compatibility statements in the first iterations had some shortcomings, but the work that the committee has done has certainly developed an awareness within the agencies for which individual ministers are responsible. The degree of detail now is making the discussions much easier. One of the elements the committee will always face is that those bills have some challenging elements in them, but the spirit and intent within the committee is to ensure that the business of the parliament is effective while at the same time having regard for the human rights of Australians in the context of the bills that pass through both chambers.
I compliment the chair on the work he does, as well as all the members and the secretariat, and on the way we have approached these issues. I compliment them on the deliberations we have had in respect of all those matters we have had to consider, including those that are sometimes challenging—and continue to be challenging—and which will remain part of further discussions that occur. I acknowledge the chair's address to the chamber and the committee's work.
On 29 August, Labor and the Greens announced the closure of the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. It was proposed for 30 November but had a closure date of 7 September, only a couple of weeks ago. It has been a devastating blow in this country to people with chronic disease who need dental services. This was the only dental scheme for adults that provided treatment under Medicare. A dental benefits schedule for children is due to commence in January 2014. That is the subject of this debate. A national partnership agreement for adult dental services that will provide payments to the states and territories, the government claims, will start in July 2014.
There are a number of points to make in relation to this. The coalition's position, firstly, is that we support further investment in dental care not just for children but also for people who are suffering from chronic diseases. Under the old scheme, they would have been referred immediately to a dentist, to relieve some of that pain and to put them on a more sustainable path. A significant part of our concern in what the government proposes is that there will be a gap of up to 19 months between the closure of this Chronic Disease Dental Scheme on 30 November and when the new scheme for adults starts in July 2014.
The existing scheme has provided up to $4,250 in Medicare dental benefits over a two-year period for eligible patients with a chronic health condition. Patients who presented to a general practitioner required a referral from that GP to a dentist and the work was then performed to the satisfaction of the patient. There has been a significant cost in this program, largely because of the huge underlying demand for dental services in our community. The government has made much of the expense under this program but it is important to remember that over 20 million services have been provided, to over a million patients, over the course of the last five years. That says to all Australians that there is a demand and that demand, in part, has been met. We know that the Labor Party sought to destroy the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, not because of a lack of demand, considering that 20 million services have been conducted, but simply because they want to discredit and trash a scheme that was set up by Tony Abbott.
The Australian public might ask themselves: 'Who is Tony Abbott and what is Tony Abbott about?' Tony Abbott was the architect of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. It provides about $1 billion a year to people in desperate need of dental services. He was the architect of this scheme. He was the person who decided that these 20 million services needed to be provided to over a million Australians, because he wanted to see an end to their suffering of dental conditions. That is why the scheme has been a success. It is for that single reason—that Tony Abbott was the architect of the scheme—not that there is no demand or that the scheme was not justified, that this government has sought to close it down.
Despite the overblown claims by this government, the average claim under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, according to the department, was not $4,250 but $1,716. Recent estimates suggest that this figure has fallen even more, down to $1,200 per patient. Eighty per cent of people using the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme have a concession card. The government has tried to paint this as some sort of playground for the rich, for people who can access services under the universal Medicare scheme that we have for conditions relating to the rest of the body. They claim that the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme has been a rip-off because it has applied the same universal scheme as we have operating under Medicare. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the targeting of the scheme, given that 80 per cent of the services were not provided to people of significant means; they were provided to people who held a concession card.
This government has an ideological and continuing attack on people they deem to be rich—that is, people with an earning capacity of over $70,000 or $80,000 a year. It determines these people are not worthy of support. Yes, those people have accessed this scheme, but only two in 10 of those who have received services in this scheme have been people other than those who hold a concession card. It would have cost more in the administration of this scheme to exclude that 20 per cent than it did to allow them to receive these services. That, to me, says a lot about what this government is embarking upon. Many of those people would have otherwise been forced to go without treatment or they would have been added to public dental waiting lists that already have 650,000 people on them. Consider that point for a moment.
Eighty per cent of those who accessed support under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme had a concession card. Had Tony Abbott's scheme not been in place, those people—the 800,000 or so who accessed support under this scheme—would have joined the 650,000 who languish on waiting lists this very day. The government says that there is no need for the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme or that somehow it is the playground of the rich or that somehow it is justified to close this scheme. But it would keep a 19-month gap between now and when people can access a scheme—although it would not be as generous as the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. Look to the facts, not to the spin, of what this Labor government provides.
It is estimated, on available information, that 16 million services have been provided to patients with concession cards through the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. Some patients will not be able to complete treatment when the closure is due to occur on 30 November. It may be a cancer patient who is part-way through treatment for their condition—and I will come to a very, very important example in a moment. Consider that this government in its design of this legislation has not even taken into consideration cancer patients or people suffering from chronic disease who may be part-way through treatment. They will suffer under what Labor proposes in its new arrangement and in the closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. They are patients who cannot afford the full cost of private care and they will not receive treatment for 19 months under what the government is proposing before this House today.
I spoke before of an example, and I want to bring the House's attention to a very, very serious case of a constituent of mine by the name of Mr Wayne Whitehead, who recently contacted me. I think his circumstances deserve recognition in this parliament. This is a man who is suffering and is in significant pain. He will suffer more when the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme closes. This government may be full of good intent but it does not have the capacity to deliver on programs—as we have seen, day after day, over the course of the last five years—and this is just the latest example. Mr Whitehead could well represent thousands of patients around the country in these circumstances. His own circumstances are that he has battled with throat cancer. Due to damage from radiation treatment he is unable to produce saliva or open his jaw normally. He needs frequent dental care and intensive and regular fluoride treatment. Mr Whitehead has been advised that an extraction will require major surgery in a hospital followed by specialised and expensive medical care. The cost of the procedure would be substantial, at about $55,000 for such an extraction and subsequent treatment. Mr Whitehead is on a disability support pension and he says:
… due to my ill health and the cost of daily treatment 3 monthly dental visits for regular check-ups would be prohibitive.
The minister and the Greens in concert need to explain why Mr Whitehead and countless others have to go through the stress and suffering caused by the gap between the closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme and the 2014 delivery of their proposals.
This legislation does not commence until 1 January 2014—bearing in mind that this relates to children. The bill makes very minor amendments to the Dental Benefits Act 2008, only changing the eligibility age of the current Medicare Teen Dental Plan from 12 to 17 years to two to 17 years. It does make other minor terminology changes to provide for a change from the Medicare Teen Dental Plan to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. The schedule of service fees and details of how the scheme will be funded are still not available. The government is rushing this bill through the parliament without having this detail, even though it does not commence for well over a year—in fact, after the next election.
The minister has acknowledged that services for most children will cost less than the proposed $1,000 cap—at least that is what the government modelling is telling them. Some children will require more services, and there is no provision to ensure they continue to receive adequate treatment, especially in the period before this bill commences. Available data suggests that well over 60,000 services have been provided to children under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, and it comes to an end on 30 November. Many children who are sick and suffering from chronic disease will suffer in pain during the 13-month gap before 1 January 2014 when services will be available to them, but at a much lower cap than the $4,250 available to them under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. These are children who are in the midst of treatment, who will not be able to have their treatment completed by 30 November. What does the minister or this Prime Minister say to those people, to those families, who have children suffering with severe pain? These are kids who had access under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme but cannot get access under this scheme. Why are they put in that position?
I bring you back to my earlier point, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that is that the government's intent to close the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was not about making it easier or making dental services more accessible for children and for adults; it was about making a political point because they want to be able to say at the next election, 'We closed down Tony Abbott's Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, and here we are champions of the new scheme that we have designed in concert with the Greens.' I say that Australians should see through what is completely and utterly a contemptuous act by a government desperate to return themselves to some sort of respectability in the polls.
This decision has not taken into consideration those sick children who have received treatments under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme—60,000 of them. We are not talking about one or two cases where assistance may be able to be provided. What do people do, what do families do, over the course of the next 13 months? For many of them, if they are in desperate situations, as obviously many of them are, they can only access treatment through what is an already overburdened public system where 650,000 people wait and languish to receive those services.
This Prime Minister and this minister need to explain to the Australian people what happens in those individual cases over the course of the next 13 months where kids are suffering, some of in silence but many of them not. I would say to those families: contact your local Labor member of parliament and contact your local Labor senator and say to those people, 'Why is it that your government is removing much needed assistance for my child? Why is it that this government has decided to close down the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme and not to start anything in its place?'
That is why yesterday, on behalf of Tony Abbott and the coalition, I announced that we would move to disallow the government's procedure in this parliament to close down the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, so that people can at least get support under that scheme or something similar in the intervening period—which is 13 months if they are children and 19 months if they are adults—until the government's new scheme can commence. That is the very least that this government could provide to people and children who are suffering from dental pain. That is what we need to ask of this government and it is the very least that it can provide to those people.
There are a couple of other points that need to be made as part of this debate. Australia has 5.1 million concession card holders and an additional 2.3 million people without concession cards, on low incomes, who could benefit from coverage, according to the government's own National Advisory Council on Dental Health, under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The government's proposed number of services, even if delivered, as promised, by 2018, will be totally insufficient in meeting the demand that is going to be created under this proposal.
In 2008, Labor proposed the Commonwealth dental program, which it never delivered. The program promised one million services by providing funding to the states and territories, and it was revealed in Senate estimates that the Commonwealth did not assess the capacity of the public dental workforce to provide the projected services, and the number delivered might have been significantly less than that promised.
The number of services to be provided over the full six years under Labor's recent proposal is only 20 per cent of what the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme provided last year alone. The government say that in the design of their scheme, even though in net terms they are training no new dentists, clinicians or technicians, they are going to open the gates to several million more Australians come 1 January 2014, or 1 July 2014, depending on which part of the scheme you are talking about. And they will have people lining up on the doorsteps of dentists around the country, where apparently millions of places are sitting vacant right now! Somehow the government argue that this is a well-designed scheme and somehow, even though they are not going to increase supply between now and 2014, it is okay to have millions of additional services being required from people.
Does anybody hear an alarm bell ringing about the design of this scheme? Has anybody thought back to the pink batts, to computers in schools or to school halls? Do people think that the government possess the capacity to deliver the most basic of design when it comes to programs? I would have thought that the government could have given away free pink batts with some success, but they did not. They burnt houses down and people died as a result of that program. They wasted billions of dollars and there is a huge tail liability in that scheme because they now have to remove the defective pink batts from people's ceilings around the country at a significant cost to taxpayers.
Yet the government say they are going to design a scheme. Again, they are full of good intent, but look at the detail of what they provide. They say that with no new dentists we can bring millions of people into dental surgeries across the country from 1 January. There will be no phased implementation and no increase in the workforce between now and 1 January 2014, and somehow we can provide services to all of those people! There will be no increase in the price that dentists charge, even though they have people lined up out the doors!
Do people seriously believe that this government will get the design right? Think about the school halls program, where they had the same good intent—the same superficially attractive proposal—where they said, 'We will put money into schools.' Nobody would knock that back, but this government spent billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on overpriced school halls that, in the end, did not deliver what this government promised. This government squandered the opportunity to deliver significant infrastructure, because in the process it spent money lining the pockets of people who were greedy and saw a purchaser in distress. Those greedy people saw this government coming, and school halls were built well over price and the benefit was not delivered to the school, the students or to the taxpayer. That is the track record of this government when it comes to those two programs.
Look at what else this government has done. In relation to the provision of solar panels this government completely mucked up the delivery of that program. This is a government that started with billions of dollars in the bank, and it wasted every single dollar. It was not the government's money but taxpayers' money. Not only did it waste that money, it thrust us into unprecedented debt. This government talks about a surplus, and it has talked about a surplus for five years, but this government has delivered the four most significant deficits in our country's history. And it continues to ramp up debt on a daily basis in this country. Yet it asks the Australian public to believe that it can deliver a dental scheme from 1 January 2014.
Let's ask why the government is introducing legislation today, without the detail attached to it, for a scheme that will not start until after the next election. There are only two possible scenarios. The first is that this government has no intention of delivering this scheme, and it wants a policy that is superficially appealing to the Australian public, because, like the coalition, the Australian people want to see more money put into dental services. But the coalition do not want to see money wasted without people getting the services that they rightly deserve.
That is the first scenario: this government has said one thing and they intend to do the opposite after the election. That may well ring a familiar tune with the Australian public, because this Prime Minister said before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads but she did the complete opposite when she got into power. So this government should not be taken on their spin but on their track record.
If people want to look at what the government will be like if they are re-elected at the next election, look at what they have been like over the last five years. They have squandered money. They started with good intent in policies but they have not been able to get the design right and not been able to deliver what they promised to the Australian people. That is the first scenario. The second is that they have rushed this in for political purposes but also because they believe they can implement the scheme, perhaps with some significant design feature changes which they will sort out if they get elected at the next election. Either way, people need to be deeply suspicious about what the government is offering up.
What is the position of the coalition? The starting point, as I said in my opening remarks, is that we want to see further investment into dental care. We want to make sure that it is done efficiently and productively. Why? Because we want to make sure that we get the maximum number of services delivered to those most in need. In the end, we are the guardians of taxpayers' money and it is incumbent upon us to make sure that people who deserve the services get the services at the lowest possible cost. That is what we are charged with, and that is what this government has lost sight of.
This government has closed down the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme not to replace it with a scheme that starts from 1 December but to say to the Australian public that, even if you are suffering from a chronic disease, even if you are a concession card holder and you are in the most desperate of circumstances, you will have to wait up to 19 months to receive any assistance at all. The minister will say, 'We've put more money into the public dental waiting list, and somehow we'll work through that list.' Some people at the moment wait five years or more on the public dental waiting list. If they are waiting five years or more, and there are 650,000 people on that list as of today, how can people seriously take this minister at her word? Are people who are receiving treatment today under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme somehow going to jump the queue of 650,000 people over the next 19 months? This minister has no credibility.
In the end, in wasting money, this government has decreased the capacity of our nation to deliver a more effective health system. When this minister talks about the extra spend in health, what she is saying is that she has employed more health bureaucrats. I think health bureaucrats are well intentioned and I think many of them do a wonderful job. This government, having spent all the money and plunged into debt, has now arrived at a crossroad, where the choice is to continue to spend money on recurrent bureaucratic positions or to reapply and redirect some of that money to front-line services. This government has a decision to make, and future governments will have a decision to make, about whether to continue to bloat the health bureaucracy in this country or to apply that money to the doctors, nurses, dentists and allied health professionals across the country who are trying to make a difference in people's lives.
The idea of an infrastructure or a bureaucracy is to deliver services efficiently to the people they serve, and in our case that is the Australian public. Over the last five years, where have the government spent money in health? They have spent it on the creation of 12 new bureaucracies. They have not spent it in front-line areas. They have not spent it on providing advances and opportunities to our researchers and to people who are delivering amazing interventions on a daily basis. This government have taken a deliberate decision to divert money away from the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme and to put it into their ever-growing bureaucracy.
The Australian people understand that. They understand that because it is what Labor did at a state level. It is what Labor did in New South Wales and Queensland in particular. They bloated their bureaucracies to a point where the recurrent spend became unmanageable. And what happened? People could not get into emergency departments. People waited hours and hours with sick children in emergency departments. Older Australians, concession card holders, pensioners, and self-funded retirees on small, fixed incomes saw services drop off in public hospitals because Labor decided to increase the number of bureaucrats in the system and take money away from doctors, nurses and core services.
After the next election, if the coalition is elected, we will make a deliberate strategy to return support to front-line services, to doctors, to nurses, to those people who are seeing patients and those people who are making a tangible difference in people's lives. That is what the health portfolio is about. It is not about making yourself feel good because you have new buildings, new motor vehicles and new infrastructure which requires billions of dollars more each year to feed.
The government should be about providing support to people who are sick. They have taken their eye off the ball, and there is no more egregious example than the area of dental health. People received millions of services under a system that was designed by Tony Abbott, a system which made an intervention into people's lives and changed their futures. That is what the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was about. If the government sought to close it down and implement their own scheme immediately after the closure then people might understand. But to leave a 19-month gap during which people cannot access adequate dental services, and particularly where people are already suffering from a chronic disease, is a cruel blow by this government. It underscores the point that we make—that the government, when it comes to health, have taken their eye off the ball. They have adopted the state Labor strategy of spending money not on doctors and nurses but on bureaucrats, and that is why this country has been plunged into billions of dollars of debt.
The government should say here and now, in this place, to the Australian people what will happen over the next 19 months, when this void will appear in people's lives, when treatments that are partly carried out will not be finished. What happens to those people? I ask the following speakers from the Labor Party, who would have been receiving the same correspondence that I have from around the country from people who are suffering from chronic disease and who are petrified at the closure of the scheme: what do you say to those people? How could you look those people in the eye and say that you provide no services to them, not because you have intent to implement a better scheme but because you want to close it down for your own raw political purposes? I think the Australian people will make their judgement at the time of the next election, and so they should. It will be a damning judgement on a government that has failed in so many areas, this just being the latest. (Time expired)
It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012 that will service our community, especially the most vulnerable. I am always happy to take advice from anyone, including those opposite, but, let us not forget, in 1996 the very first act of the Howard Liberal coalition government was to cut the Commonwealth dental scheme. We all remember that; every single one of us remembers that. That was the first act of the Howard government—to cut the Commonwealth dental scheme, which saw the list of people waiting for dental procedures and dental care skyrocket to 750,000 people with over two years on the waiting list. So now we hear them come into this House, preach to us on dental care and tell us what it means to them.
In opposition, I asked many questions about dental care and I always got the same response back, whether it was from the Minister for Health of the coalition at the time or whether it was from the Prime Minister. The answer was like this: 'It has got nothing to do with the federal government; it has got nothing to do with us. Go to your mates in the state Labor government; it is a state responsibility.' That is all we heard from the other side. In 2007, as the doom and gloom was overshadowing them, they decided that they should try and do something about this particular issue. What did they do? They came up with this cobble-wash scheme that was meant to cost $80 million per year. It is now costing us $80 million per month and giving dental care to millionaires and not giving the care that is required to low-income earners, to the unemployed, to pensioners and to a whole range of other people. So I am very pleased and very proud to be in this House today promoting this bill and speaking in support of this bill.
We were elected in 2007 and again in 2010 on a platform of recreating a federal dental scheme. We have a mandate that is as clear as can be and we have the electoral authority to deliver reform on the provisions of dental services in this land. If you look at the Hansard from when we were in opposition and from when we were in government, and at the promises that were made, it was about delivering a dental scheme that was equitable for all in this nation, not just for millionaires. However, we have been obstructed every step of the way by those who know only one word and that is the word 'no'. We hear it continually from those opposite on so many issues. And with mind-boggling predictability we are going to hear it again on this particular bill.
The fear campaign from which Labor took office five years ago continues and we see it again today. The Abbott scare campaign is trying to convince people that Labor is going to deprive people of a dental service. Well, the only people that have deprived the Australian public of a dental service were the opposition coalition when they were in government in 1996. They came in and axed the Commonwealth dental scheme, requiring people to wait up to two or three years to have their teeth fixed.
Labor has proposed and has been pursuing something very different to those opposite to increase the availability of dental services. As I said, the poorly designed coalition scheme that we sought for years to replace subsidised treatment of the millionaires while depriving age pensioners, welfare recipients, Australian battlers around the nation and low-income earners. It subsidised elective cosmetic work while people with the most need could not get assistance. As I said earlier, Tony Abbott said it would cost $90 million per year but it is costing a billion dollars a year or $80 million per month and people still cannot get treatment they require. It was a scheme that was poorly designed and that led to waste and dissatisfaction, with over 1,000 complaints lodged from those who were able to access the scheme but were not satisfied.
There has been free money from the government to dental practices, and taxpayer funds were gouged by billions of dollars each and every year. Treatments have been of low value and poorly performed or have remained inaccessible to those who need them most. Something has to change. The system needs to improve but improvement is anathema to the opposition, who prefer a culture of fear, as we have seen continually in this House.
This opposition scare campaign has cried out with false alarm, as we heard from the previous speakers—false alarm that Labor plan to deprive people of available dental services. As I said, the only people who deprived the Australian public from dental care were the former Liberal government, which cut the Commonwealth dental scheme as a first act as a government. And that is the cynical mockery of their fear campaign. They say Australians should be scared that Labor will direct dental services away from millionaires to those who most need them, those who find it most difficult to afford them. It has been just one of a continual string of cynical Orwellian ironies where the coalition says positive change is negative change, where an increase in services means a decrease in availability and where the Abbott coalition strive to convince the people to fear the very changes that will most benefit them.
Today, as I said, I am very pleased and proud to speak in favour of this legislation, which will deliver Labor's expanded dental benefits scheme—this government's version of a Commonwealth dental scheme—which will allocate vastly increased services to children and funding for expanded state services for adults in need.
As a result of this package, which was announced by the Minister for Health in late August, 3.4 million Australian children will be eligible for funded dental care through the expansion of the government's current child focused dental scheme. Currently, children aged 12 to 18 can access dental care. With this bill, almost 3½ million children aged two and over will be able to access the care they need. That will be a good start in dental hygiene, and will set the path for fewer problems in the future, costing governments less money. Funding will be provided to the states to provide around 1.4 million additional dental services for adults on low incomes such as age pensioners, concession card holders and people with special needs.
Let us look at those numbers: 1.4 million. When we look back in the Howard years, there were 750,000 people on the waiting list who had to wait over two years. Providing 1.4 million services will ensure that that waiting list comes right down. And if those opposite were to form a government next election—shock, horror!—I bet you one of the first things they would do is cut the current scheme, leaving people high and dry, and we would see those figures escalate, maybe well over 750,000 and up to the million mark.
Further, outer metropolitan, rural and remote areas will receive additional capital and workforce to provide the services where they are needed. This package relies on federal funding complementing state funding. So, as with many things negotiated between tiers of government in this Federation, state governments will have the choice—and I suspect New South Wales and Queensland will take it—to sabotage the dental services of their own residents, as we have seen with the cuts in those states over the previous few weeks. I fear this will be the case with this particular scheme in Queensland and New South Wales, where services are being absolutely stripped on an almost-daily basis. And, as we heard, that is the entree of the real thing if the coalition ever forms government.
But I can assure you that, at least in South Australia, the federal government will cover, through this program, a much greater number of children of families of limited means. This will make already budgeted funds and an additional 1.4 million dental services or appointments solely available for adults who need the most assistance. This creates a package of services for those adults in need of dental care while providing preventative work for children to prevent dental problems becoming a major long-term issue.
I welcome this package of reforms, as all of us on this side do. We welcome these reforms because, for far too long, dental care has been separate from health care—yet one cannot exist without the other. Without good teeth or dentures, without oral health, we cannot have good dietary habits and good nutrition; and without good nutrition, other health problems are as good as certain. This is an area of policy very close to our hearts on this side. We campaigned on it when we were in opposition, we campaigned on it in 2007 when we were elected and it was a promise in the 2010 election. So we are delivering on what we told the Australian public. I personally campaigned on this issue as a candidate and an opposition MP, year after year, and received full support from my constituency toward the Commonwealth ensuring the provision of a decent level of dental services and dental care for those who need them most in our community. As I said earlier, this issue was raised by me and many others, many times in opposition, and the answer always came back the same—that it had nothing to do with the then Howard government. That was the response we got: it was a state issue.
When conducting surveys in my electorate, dental care was the one issue which received the greatest support from senior residents, specifically residents on the age pension, a pension that was worth much less then than it is today, thanks to Labor's reforms. But, even with a substantial increase in the age pension, the cost of dental care is more than many can afford, especially those with the greatest dental problems and those who require the greatest and most costly dental work. Labor have done what we have been able to get through the parliament since forming government in 2007. We have injected very substantial funds, through the budget process, in helping the states reduce the waiting lists for the state based services while trying to redirect federal funding being wasted, year after year, billions of dollars after billions of dollars, on the Leader of the Opposition's flawed chronic dental system.
With this bill we have the start of a new package of dental reforms which will deliver the services with willing state governments to meet the needs of both young and old and those in most need. It is a duty of this place to provide the assistance where it is most needed, to provide services that are most critical and to help Australians improve and maintain their health and their lives, with that objective—a healthy Australian population in clear sight.
This bill will start operation on 1 January 2014. For many decades the history of the dental health of children in this country was that it was improving. But since the mid-1990s we have seen a reversal of that. Since the late 1990s the prevalence of children with dental problems, and the mean number of teeth affected by dental diseases in children, has increased. A recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report showed that 45 per cent of 12-year-olds had decay in their permanent teeth and almost 25 per cent of 12-year-olds had untreated decay. If a decline in oral health of children becomes established, children will require increased services in the future. So it is very important that we see the investment in our children's teeth as an investment in the future, as an investment in good oral hygiene—and we know that poor childhood oral health leads to poor adult oral health and has wide- ranging impacts on general health and wellbeing, including increasing the demand on our health and hospital system.
This bill is a very important one and I am proud to support it. It is a bill I have campaigned on for many years and I hope those opposite will consider agreeing to it, because at the heart of it are pensioners, people on low incomes and children. It is extremely important that this bill is supported for the benefit of dental care.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the order of the day, private Members’ business, relating to Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 being reported from the Federation Chamber and considered immediately.
I rise to speak against the motion. It is my understanding that what is about to happen is that the Marriage Amendment Bill, introduced by the member for Throsby, is about to be brought back from the Federation Chamber and quickly put to a vote here. There should be no vote on this bill until members of the coalition have a conscience vote on the question of marriage equality.
This is a central issue of equality, as many on the Labor side of the House know. We should not have two standards of love in this country. There should be one very clear message sent from this parliament that for all people in this country your love is equal. It is important not only for those individuals who want to marry the person they love; it is also important for the young boy in a country town who is working out who he is attracted to or to the girl who wants to go with her partner to the high school formal but cannot because they are in a same-sex relationship. We have an opportunity here in this parliament to change the law to send a message to the whole of Australia that all love is equal.
But this is also a central matter of freedom of choice. There are those in this House, predominantly sitting on the opposition benches, who come in here and tell us routinely that the state should not interfere with an individual's right to make their own decisions in their personal life unless there is harm to others. If you believe that, then that principle should extend to the most fundamental of all decisions, which is the right to marry the person you love. Government should have no role in telling an individual in this society that they are not allowed to marry the person they love.
A question of freedom of choice should also go to how one is able to exercise a vote on this issue. We are now in the paradoxical situation where the Labor Party members are able to exercise a free vote, but the party that prides itself on an individual's freedom of choice, and an individual MP's right to vote according to their conscience, is not allowing its members to vote the way they want. This is a significant problem and a significant roadblock in the way of reform, which is why we should not allow this matter to be put to a vote today.
I have spoken with members of the coalition who agree with the bill and who agree that we should have marriage equality in this country. I have spoken with members of the coalition—and indeed we heard some of them speak in the Senate this week—calling for the right to exercise a conscience vote. They have said that if they could have a conscience vote they would vote to remove discrimination from our marriage laws.
This is a matter that the Greens have been pursuing in this parliament for some time, not just in this parliament but in previous parliaments as well. We have been at the forefront of the push for marriage equality. We have always known that there is no point in putting up a bill only to see it voted down, simply for the purpose of grandstanding or trying to clear it off the political agenda. We want to see reform.
I accept that there are members, of goodwill, on the Labor side who do want to see reform, who do want to see this law changed. But, equally, there are members on the government side who just want this issue cleared off the agenda, and they have said as much publicly. They have said that they are sick of parliament having to debate this most fundamental of issues. It is for this reason that I fear we are about to witness a very cynical move to put this to a vote quickly in an attempt to clear it off the political agenda. That would certainly be very consistent with what senior factional figures within the ALP have said. That is not something we should countenance. This issue is too important, and we have too good an opportunity to see reform, for it to be subject to cynical manoeuvrings and put to a quick vote.
When you look at the international experience you see conservative parties around the world joining with other parties to recognise that the time has come for marriage equality. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, has said he believes there should be marriage equality. And, of course, we have seen other significant figures who are not on the conservative side of politics, like President Obama, who have said that even though they went to an election saying there should be no change they have since had the opportunity to reflect on the issue, talk to those close to them and understand that there are many in committed same-sex relationships who are working for them, and they have changed their minds. I firmly believe, and the Greens firmly believe, that with enough time we can change the minds not only of the Labor Party, who managed to change their position at their conference, but also of the coalition so that those on the coalition side who believe in freedom of choice can vote the way I know they want to.
We need that additional time to campaign, because we know that, although people may not have thought about this issue much before, public opinion has moved on. We know that from the House inquiry into these bills. Some 64 per cent of the respondents to the online survey supported a change in the law—and that was out of over a quarter of a million responses, one of the largest responses ever—which is consistent with the results of every opinion poll conducted on this question. If we truly wanted to give effect to the public will, we would change the law and we would give members of parliament enough time to move along with their communities—to take the temperature of their communities and to understand that this is not something which is going to cost them votes but is something which will gain them votes.
I fear that we are about to witness a cynical attempt to get marriage equality off the political agenda, but it will not work. It will not work for a number of reasons. The Greens still have a bill to remove discrimination from the Marriage Act before both houses of parliament—and today's move will not deter us from proceeding with that bill. This should be an issue next year, an election year, and it will be, whether or not the government and the coalition like it.
In the two years this parliament has sat, never before have we had a situation where a private member's bill has been brought on for a vote with notice of just an hour or so. It is usual practice for the Selection Committee to determine that a bill is coming to a vote. Then, once it is known that a vote is to be scheduled, a couple of weeks are usually allowed for final lobbying. Instead, this bill is being brought on with a very short notice period. While some in this chamber may have known when it was being brought on, the public did not. That is significant—members of the public should have had the chance to make some final efforts to get their MPs to vote one way or the other.
I do hope that we do not see a vote on this today. If we do, my message to those who are campaigning for change is: do not lose heart from a losing vote today because we, the Greens, will be bringing marriage equality back to this parliament through our own private member's bill. Those who are campaigning for change should know that, ultimately, history is on their side and that history will leave behind those who today vote against change. If Catholic Spain can vote for change, modern-day democratic Australia can vote for change as well. Whether or not it happens today, we will get there.
Let us be very clear about what this motion is. This is a motion to suspend standing orders so we can have a vote on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. That is what is before the House.
I say, with due respect to the member for Melbourne, that he knows full well that I, as Leader of the House, engage in proper consultation over issues—including with him on this one. I reject completely the suggestion that somehow this is a surprise. He knows that is not the case. I spoke to him yesterday, I spoke to him last week, I spoke to him last month and I have spoken to him about these issues throughout this year—just as I speak with the Manager of Opposition Business, treating both him and his position with respect. I am not going to leave unchallenged the suggestion that I, as Leader of the House, just spring things on the chamber without proper consultation. That is not how I have approached things—not only in this parliament but in the previous parliament, when I was also Leader of the House.
Inside the caucus, inside the parliament and publicly, I have stated a number of times that there would be a vote on this legislation sometime this year. Earlier in the year, during the previous session of parliament, there was a suggestion that somehow we were bringing the vote on. I made it very clear that there would be no pre-emptive conclusion to this debate—that everyone would have an opportunity to speak. And every single member of this House has had an opportunity to speak on this legislation. In fact, there have been some 41 contributions to the debate on the member for Throsby's private member's bill.
There are different views on this legislation. I am a supporter of this legislation. I have publicly advocated it and I have put my contribution on the record—it is in the Hansard of the House of Representatives. As part of that contribution, I stated that those of us who are arguing for inclusion need to be inclusive in the way we conduct ourselves in this debate. With respect to the member for Melbourne, I say to him that his denial of leave is not an inclusive action. It is an exclusive action. It is not an action which advances the cause in which we have a common interest.
I came into this House for the first time in March 1996. In my first term of office, I was the first person to move a private member's bill—it was on superannuation—relating to equality for same-sex couples. When I did it, people questioned my motives, asking, 'Why is he doing that?' It was a controversial issue. We could not get debate on the issue, so it lapsed. We then had to move it again. I moved it three times without it being brought to a conclusion. I say to the member for Melbourne that there is nothing positive about being able to move a bill that never reaches conclusion. There needs to be a determination in which people are on the record as voting for, against or abstaining on, as is their choice, this legislation.
The member for Melbourne also suggests that we should hold off any conclusion to this debate until such time as those on the coalition benches are granted a conscience vote. I say this to the member for Melbourne: whilst the Leader of the Opposition holds that office I cannot see the coalition changing their view. But that is a matter for them. It is also a matter for them whether they stand up and vote according to their conscience if they disagree with that position.
We need to be inclusive about the way we conduct ourselves in this debate: it should be a debate in which people participate and the debate is exhausted and concluded. We had the summing up from the member for Throsby in the Federation Chamber earlier today, and all members have had an opportunity to participate in this debate. I said as part of my contribution that I believed that this reform and change would occur. This is a last area of discrimination. It is one in which I expect there not to be a majority on the floor of the House of Representatives today. That does not mean it changes my position and I am sure it will not change the position of the member for Throsby or the member for Melbourne or other advocates who have argued the case on this issue.
History does move forward when it comes to removing discrimination—whether on the basis of age, gender, ethnicity or indeed sexual preference—in a liberal democracy such as ours. In our first term of office we removed discrimination from 84 pieces of legislation. We did in that a way that was bipartisan across the parliament. It happened without rancour. It happened in a way that was consensus driven and was constructive. That change has made a real difference to people's lives in areas such as migration, social security and health. The reform that will come before the parliament today will also make a real difference to people's lives when it occurs because it will say that society regards as being of equal value a loving relationship, a committed relationship, between two people who wish to make a lifelong commitment to each other, regardless of whether it is a heterosexual relationship or a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Giving rights to a group of people who currently do not have the same rights as others does not take away rights from those who currently have access to marriage. That is the basis of my support for this legislation.
We need to be disciplined, if I can use that term, about the language and about the way in which the debate is conducted. We need to respect the fact that on this issue there are different views that are deeply held. I too think this should be a conscience vote. I argued within my political party that it should be a conscience vote and I continue to have that view. Not everyone does. There was some criticism of me for having that view. My view is that a conscience vote across the parliament is the way that this reform will occur at some time in the future. But opposing the bringing on of this vote today does nothing to advance that cause. That is why I argue that the parliament should support the motion that I have moved to bring the bill before the chamber. We should have this determination. We should recognise that it does not conclude the debate. People who are discriminated against and want equal rights argue for it. (Time expired)
Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, very briefly, just to clarify something—
The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. Leave is not granted. The member has already spoken. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order127. The names of the members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Wilkie voting no.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. Although the coalition will not be opposing the bill at this stage, we believe there should be an inquiry with respect to dental issues, for this bill on its own is not the whole story. What the government has not trumpeted is its announcement that Medicare benefits under the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme will close to all patients on 1 December 2012. There might be people out there thinking the government is replacing one scheme with another and asking, 'So what's the big deal?'
Unfortunately, the big deal is that Labor's new plan will not start until 2014. This means that from 8 September 2012, when no new services under the existing scheme will be provided, it will be 13 months before children receive government assistance with their dental care, and 19 months for adults. In a peak of political cynicism at its worst, 650,000 people will be left on the public dental waiting lists—many of them with chronic disease, who are most in need of dental treatment and who were relying on the MCDDS to help pay for their dental treatments, without any assistance in the meantime. The department's notice to patients reads:
Patients will need to meet the full cost of any dental service provided on or after 1 December 2012 - Medicare benefits will not be paid for these services.
The government has not even listened to the Australian Dental Association, which raised concerns that some patients will not be able to complete their necessary treatments by 30 November, which could lead to dire circumstances for these people.
You have to ask yourself: why does the government need to introduce a bill now for a scheme that does not start until 2014? You may have noticed that the Labor government have decided to adopt the smoke-and-mirrors approach—that is, they make an announcement they think will distract the electorate or a stakeholder from what they are really up to, which in this case is to make a saving on the backs of those who are most in need of dental treatment. We know it is political cynicism because the government has passed up all bipartisan efforts to refine and improve the MCDDS, including a process for providing high-cost items, such as crowns and bridges. These were just rejected.
Under this scheme, there are two parts—one for children and one another for low-income adults and those who live in rural and remote areas. This bill provides for a means-tested family tax benefit part A entitlement for children aged between two and 17 years, which seeks to target the provision of subsidised dental care for children through private dentists with a reduced $1,000 capped benefit over two years to eligible children. Greater access to dental care for children is always a welcome aspiration. Unfortunately, one only needs to look at the GP superclinics program to see what happens with Labor promises. Only 27 of the promised 46 have been delivered. And I have to ask, where are the much-vaunted early psychosis prevention centres? Not one of the promised 16 has been delivered—not one.
The coalition's Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, in which 80 per cent of services have been provided to concession card holders, stands as a monument to our ability to deliver extra investment and dental health. Indeed, the coalition is the only party to deliver a Medicare dental scheme that enables Australians to access treatment, despite all of Labor's promises.
There can be only two reasons for the government wanting to abolish this scheme. The first reason is that the scheme was one of the major health initiatives of the Howard government and was introduced by one Tony Abbott. It has been a tremendous success in improving access for treatment, providing $4,250 in Medicare dental benefits over a two-year period to eligible patients with chronic health conditions.
Do not take my word or it. Ask the one million patients, since 2007, who have taken advantage of this scheme. They have had over 17 million treatments, which they would have had to pay for themselves or, worse still, continue to suffer. Labor's spin on this has been that the coalition's MCDDS has seen expenditure blow-outs. Yet the average claim per patient, according to the Department of Health and Ageing, is only $1,716. That is 40 per cent of the scheme's allowable limit of $4,250.
The second reason for closing the scheme is that accounting tricks alone will not be enough in the Gillard government's quest to find their elusive surplus. They will have to make real cuts. However, they believe that if they make future promises no-one will notice these cuts. We recently had announcements on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and now there is this Dental Benefits Amendment Bill. The problem for Labor is that the public have begun to ask: where is the money coming from to fund the government's $120 billion black hole?
The government is not even pretending to know. Minister Plibersek ventured that this scheme was not even in the forward estimates and that 'We need to fund a new $4 billion.' According to the Prime Minister, the announcement of the dental scheme was actually about a 'large saving'. When you take a second look at what the government's scheme is likely to achieve, in the cold light of day, it does not look that impressive. Firstly, it will be set up by funding dental care through state governments. The aim is to provide access to public dental care for low-income adults and those in rural and remote areas. However, unlike the MCDDS, it does not target patients in most need of dental treatment, namely those with chronic disease.
As Mark Foster, Chief Executive Officer of Hunter Medicare Local, says: 'Disadvantaged patients may be able to access care through public dental clinics but waiting lists may be an issue for patients with urgent problems.' He went on to state, 'While there were some issues with the old program, it is disappointing to see it scrapped and to wait for 19 months until the new one is in place.' If the government cared as much about dental care as they claim, they would have—as the Association for the Promotion of Health has called for—increased access for dental care for children but kept the existing MCDDS in place for adults. They could have tightened the criteria and provided additional support, through Medicare Locals, to dentists for improving compliance with program guidelines until such time as the program could be modified.
The bill also does not address the problems there are in accessing trained dental professionals, particularly in rural and regional areas such as in my electorate of Paterson. I appreciate it takes time for such dental infrastructure to be put in place. But where are the guarantees or independent assessments that such capacity will be in place to provide timely treatment for all those currently on public dental waiting lists?
Capacity increases could be achieved through the Flexible Grants Program for dental infrastructure; however, this will not come online until 2014. Someone has to ask: how many additional patients will be treated when the scheme comes into operation in 2014? The coalition estimates that the unfunded cost of it will be another $225 million. The lack of preparation seems to demonstrate that this dental benefits scheme will be yet another unfunded promise. The unfunded costs for children in this bill are estimated to be $2.7 billion, with adults covered under the scheme having an unfunded cost equivalent to $1.3 billion—all part of the $120 billion unfunded black hole.
If it were just about politics, that would be one thing. However, what this government often fails to realise is that its policies affect real people. I recently received an email from Marian Sampson, of Nelson Bay, who is a parent and carer. She told me about Brendan, her 15-year-old boy, with multiple chronic diseases, who is a long-term cancer survivor. When his chronic conditions are managed, she says that he is a healthy, contributing member of the community. His treatment has included extensive radiation to his head and neck. The price of this life-saving radiation has been that, on the left side of his jaw, his teeth are crowns only. As a result of chemotherapy and radiation, he has a serious immune deficiency and a bone structure equivalent to an elderly person—and at 15 years of age.
'What has this got to do with dental care?' you might ask. No dental surgery is set up to deal with someone with Brendan's conditions. Yet an infection when treating his jaw, or even a simple clean, could lead to a long period of hospitalisation or worse. Blood poisoning could kill him as a result of his immune deficiency and adrenal insufficiency. Due to these issues Brendan goes to a special clinic at Sydney's Westmead Hospital, as do all the children who have had bone marrow transplants. Without the MCDDS, kids like Brendan could end up costing more, through long periods of hospitalisation and other treatments. Marian says, 'Sometimes the cost of dental treatment for the chronically ill can be a cost saving rather than a cost.'
Sadly, Brendan is not an isolated case. Josh Oram, a constituent of mine from Forster, wrote to my office saying that in 2008 he had been diagnosed with a cancerous tumour in his jawbone that had never been seen before in this country. This led to his having a 30-hour surgery, where half of his jawbone was removed and replaced with a fibula or tibia bone and the calf muscle of his right leg. Undergoing such a challenge would have exhausted most people, but this government has presented Josh with yet another challenge. Because of his surgery and follow-up radiation treatment, Josh requires regular dental treatment every few months and has been receiving this. However, Josh has now been told that he only has two months of treatment left until the government's dental benefits scheme comes into effect. Is it any wonder that Josh says he feels that cancer patients are regarded as second-class citizens?
Margaret Rylands from Forster, in my electorate, has diabetes, which she has endured for 52 years. With her husband having had to undergo five bypass operations in recent years, they have little money coming in. They both have problems with their teeth, and Margaret now fears that without the MCDDS they will have little prospect of being able to afford to fix them. She said that the closure of the dental scheme was very unfair. I ask the government to take on board the desperate situation of having to forgo necessary dental treatments that people like Margaret, Brendan, Josh and thousands of others could find themselves in with the end of the MCDDS. This is just a handful of the personal challenges that have come before my office. Their situations remind us that the division between general and dental care is an artificial one.
Mark Forster, Chief Executive Officer of the Hunter Medicare Local, explained to me that dental problems can have a broad range of effects on patients with chronic diseases. They can affect nutrition, which is particularly important for patients with chronic diseases. Chronic infections have a deleterious effect on general wellbeing, which can have a significant impact on patients already unwell due to chronic disease. Dental infections can spread infection through the bloodstream, which can have a significant impact on patients already unwell due to a chronic disease. Surgery to have a prosthesis inserted will normally be delayed until a dental infection is resolved to avoid these complications. There can be significant delays in accessing this care through public clinics. Patients may suffer from severe joint pain and incapacity or face the risks associated with delays in cardiovascular surgery.
It is the need to help people such as Brendan and Josh that makes it so important that governments do not waste limited resources. As my colleague Andrew Robb pointed out in a speech last Wednesday, on the sad case of a constituent with Pompe disease, 'In 2007-08 Australia ranked 10th best in the world in terms of wastefulness in government spending, but by 2012-13 Australia had slumped to 48th in the world.' Today it is those who rely on government assistance when they find themselves in desperate situations that they have no ability to control, such as Margaret, Brendan and Josh, who are the human faces paying the Labor price for this government's profligacy. Chasing short-term savings in a quest for the ALP's elusive surplus, even when those savings are likely to create even greater expenses in the longer term, is bad policy from a seriously bad government.
Without the pink batts fiasco, the NBN cost blow-outs, the Building the Education Revolution rorts—and the list goes on—this government would not have had to leave thousands of Australians who badly need urgent critical dental care without that dental care due to the closure of the coalition's Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. As I said, this is bad policy from a bad government which affects those most in need of support in our community. I urge the government to rethink its position. Leaving people without access to supported dental programs for 14 months is criminal in itself.
I am very pleased to contribute to this afternoon's debate on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. I begin by responding to some of the points made in the member for Paterson's contribution. At one point he referred to the government and its consideration of its policies as they affect 'real people'. I should put on record that, in the member for Paterson's electorate, the real people who will be affected by virtue of the announcements made last month by the government in relation to dental health and by virtue of the arrangements in the bill before us today, are some 18,000 children, who will have access to better dental programs as a result of this measure, and roughly some 9,500 families.
When we consider the impacts of this government's policies on real people, we are very clear about our desire to provide better dental health care and better health care overall for the very many people of whatever political persuasion in electorates right around this country. The member for Paterson's electorate, my electorate and all electorates stand to benefit in a very considerable way when it comes to the measures that have been contemplated in the bill before us and in the package of dental health measures announced by the Minister for Health last month.
The member for Paterson also mentioned 'some issues' in relation to the CDDS, the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. I can confirm that there were certainly some issues with the scheme. The member for Paterson will know, as all members in this place will know, that the government have maintained a policy of shutting down that flawed scheme for some time, in fact since we were elected in 2007. That is because that scheme is fundamentally flawed. It is not means-tested, which has meant that people on extraordinary incomes can get access to over $4,000 worth of free dental care. It is not targeted, which means that patients can get things like caps, crowns and often cosmetic work at the taxpayers' experience, while those who actually severely need dental assistance and dental care may not have access to dental health care.
It was much reported, appropriately, that the cost of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme blew out by an extraordinary amount. When the Leader of the Opposition was health minister, he estimated that the scheme would cost around $90 million a year, but it has ended up costing us $1 billion each year. Yet we still see, as I will come to shortly, an extraordinary number of people who still face lengthy delays for dental care. We still see circumstances where the dental health of children across Australia leaves much to be desired. It is for those reasons that we have sought for a long period of time to shut down what is a fundamentally flawed scheme and a poor piece of public policy. There have been more than 1,000 complaints lodged about the CDDS. So, when we talk about 'some issues', in the words of the member for Paterson, it is something of an understatement in relation to this very flawed scheme. There has been widespread misuse of the scheme and it has taken us a great deal of time to try to resolve these issues and arrive at a much better set of arrangements as are contemplated in this bill and in the dental package announced by the minister last month.
This is an extremely important initiative, and the bill before us today contemplates a very important part of the $4.1 billion dental reform package, which includes a commitment of $2.7 billion for around 3½ million Australian children who will be eligible for funded dental care, and a commitment of $1.3 billion for almost 1½ million additional services for adults on low incomes, including pensioners and concession card holders and those with special needs, who will have much better access to dental health care in the public system as a result of these measures. And, notably, it includes a commitment of $225 million to expand dental services for people in rural, regional and remote areas. As I will mention shortly, some of those people living in rural and remote areas face very significant deficiencies when it comes to dental health care currently. It is entirely appropriate that the measures, both in this bill and in the package as a whole, respond to those concerns.
In my electorate the measures in this bill and in the overall package will reach more than 20,500 children and around 11,000 families. As someone who goes out and visits schools regularly and meets with children and with many young families who are in my growing electorate, I know very well that this will be extremely well received. It will give a great amount of assistance to parents who might otherwise have to delay or possibly even defer dental treatment for themselves or their children because of the expense associated with that.
In this bill the particularly important measures relating to children are emphasised by some of the findings of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's report, Oral health and dental care in Australia: key facts and figures 2011, and it really does make for sobering reading when it comes to the dental health of children and young adults in particular. Amongst the many things that it reveals, the report finds that almost 20,000 children under the age of 10 are hospitalised each year as a result of what should be entirely avoidable dental issues. For children who face hospitalisation it is traumatic, it means that they are likely to have had to endure significant health problems prior to getting to hospital, and it is disruptive for them and their families—and it is a cost for our health system to have increased rates of hospitalisation in circumstances where dental health measures which are fairly basic could have been taken. That is one of the many reasons why prevention in relation to dental health is so important.
The report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates that by the age of 15, six out of 10 children will have tooth decay. That is an incredible rate. Very importantly, the report also considers financial barriers which prevent people from visiting a dentist. It found that the proportion of those who avoided or delayed a visit to a dentist due to cost was 28.2 per cent in 2010. For children aged between five and 14, this was around 14 per cent on average. But if you look at the situation of children aged between five and 14 in families with a household income of less than $60,000, the proportion ranges between around 15 per cent and over 31 per cent. That means that in some of our lowest income households—some of the very poorest Australians—almost a third of children do not get to a dentist or do not see a dentist in a timely fashion. That is entirely unacceptable and that is the reason this Labor government has prioritised real action on dental health, particularly for children and particularly for those people who are on low incomes.
In the general population, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's report found that around 19 per cent of people would have a lot of difficulty paying a $150 dental bill. This figure is significantly higher in relation to households with an annual income of less than $60,000. This bill, and the package of measures announced by the government last month in dental care, respond directly to this issue of financial restrictions meaning people defer, delay or avoid entirely taking their children to the dentist or going themselves to the dentist.
Another of the things considered in the report is that, while untreated decay and fillings are at similar rates across income ranges, there is a big distinction between the haves and the have-nots in our society when it comes to missing teeth. The report found that if you earn more than $60,000 a year, you have, on average, seven more teeth than Australia's poorest people. That is a terrible statistic. The report also reveals that you are more likely to be missing teeth or facing dental issues if you live in outer regional and remote areas, particularly if you are one of Australia's poorest people.
I encourage members to look at this report in the context of the dental package that has been announced, because these really are statistics that bear reading by members in this place when they are considering health in Australia and preventative health, particularly preventative dental health. The report paints a very stark picture of the difference between the dental health of those who are on higher incomes and those who are on lower incomes, children and those who live in remote parts of Australia.
According to the report, around 45 per cent of 12-year-olds had decay in their permanent teeth. In 2007, just under half of children aged six attending school dental services had a history of decay in their baby teeth. These are all precursors for poor dental health and increased dental intervention for adults. All of these things that happen at an early age in dental health have very significant impacts on adults' dental health—and for their general health as a consequence.
I know that when my family arrived here from Ireland we certainly did not have a lot of money, and it was a struggle for my parents to meet the costs of sending three children to the dentist. Unfortunately, I know too well that the same struggle to meet dental bills happens in families right across my electorate and right around the country. It is awful to put parents in the position where they have to forgo or delay dental treatment for their children, knowing that it might be causing discomfort or other illness. It is an absolutely awful position to put parents in. I suspect that it has often resulted in parents forgoing things, and I suspect that it often means that a parent will delay a visit to the dentist because they give priority to their children's health.
This bill starts to respond to all of those deficiencies that we see in children's dental health, and it does so in a very significant way. The package as a whole and the measures contemplated by this bill are targeted appropriately, which was not the case in relation to the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. These are targeted at people who we know are going to receive the greatest benefit—people on lower incomes, people with children and people in remote and regional parts of Australia. It is appropriately targeted, it builds on the significant amount that has already been committed by this government and it is something that comments from the opposition in this debate and in the broader debate outside this place more generally has not been recognised.
In the budget this year the government committed over $515 million to dental spending, including $345 million specifically to take care of adults on public dental waiting lists. So this money is already committed, and it will be available to state and territory public dental systems from January of next year—just one month after the closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. It is appropriate to reflect on that in the context of some of the comments made by the shadow minister and others during this debate. This is a very significant investment and it will also mean that some 3.4 million children whose families receive family tax benefit part A, Abstudy, the carer payment, the disability support pension, the special benefit payment, youth allowance, the double orphan pension, or payments under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme will qualify for the new scheme, dental for kids.
The provisions in the bill before us and the overall package mean that families will be entitled to receive $1,000 per child every two years over the life of the package. As I have said before, that means more than 20,000 children and around 11,000 families in my electorate will be eligible to receive these payments. In a growing area of Melbourne where people are trying to make ends meet in the family budget, it is a very significant amount being contributed to dental health care. It will mean a bit more peace of mind for a lot of parents and families who would otherwise struggle to meet the costs of dental care.
This package and this bill reflect an investment in prevention. This government is building on a range of initiatives that it has put in place to focus on preventative health, so that we not only improve the health of our children and adults but we also improve the circumstances of our health expenditure into the future as our population ages.
This is an extremely important package and one that I am very proud to stand and speak on here and back in my electorate. I know that it is currently well received. I know that it will continue to be very well received as parents and as children start to see the benefits of it. Accordingly, I commend the bill and the package of measures to the House.
I rise to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. The coalition supports investment in dental health. When the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Health and Ageing in the Howard government, he introduced the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, CDDS, in 2007, a program of which the coalition is very proud, in terms of it giving access to dental care to those who need it most. This program is now being dismantled by the Gillard government and will be replaced, eventually, with their Child Dental Benefits Schedule and a program for adults that is not intended to start until July 2014—after the next election and 19 months after the CDDS closes.
As a result, we in the coalition are very concerned that many patients receiving treatment under the CDDS will be forced to forgo treatment during this gap period. My office has received many calls from constituents about what services they will be able to receive under their GP care plan and whether they are in danger of being cut, because they are receiving very mixed messages from this government.
The closure of the CDDS has been in the Labor Party's plans for many years indeed. In this instance, it is not another broken promise from the Rudd and Gillard governments. But their reasons for wanting to close down the member for Warringah's dental scheme have been political from the beginning, and it is a political attack on an effective policy which provides up to $4,250 over two years for eligible patients. We are talking about a scheme which has provided approximately 20 million services to over one million patients since 2007.
The government has form when it comes to this dental scheme. In 2008, Labor proposed the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, which it never delivered. The program promised one million services by providing funding to the states and territories. Since that time, it has been revealed in Senate estimates that the Commonwealth did not assess the capacity of the public dental workforce to provide the projected services and the number delivered might have been significantly lower than that promised.
Fortunately, the coalition and the Greens were able to block Labor's plans to abolish the scheme, but there is the fear that this is now a done deal with the formation of the Labor-Greens coalition government. It was the Minister for Health and the Greens health spokesman, Senator Di Natale, who on 29 August announced not only the closure of the CDDS but the unfunded $4.1 billion dental program that is not due to commence until 2014. The government announced then that no new patients—that is, those Australians without a pre-existing GP care plan—would be able to access services after 7 September 2012.
The most prominent concern is where the money to fund the program is going to come from. Australians are right to be concerned, when they have a health minister saying she does not know where the money is coming from and a Prime Minister simultaneously telling the media that the health minister has announced a 'savings measure'. Depending on who you listen to from Labor, this is either a good move or a bad move for the budget. As much as Labor wishes it to be true, it cannot be both an unfunded cost measure and a savings measure, and the health minister has reiterated that the government had previously accounted for the closure of the CDDS—thus, these dental measures are indeed cost measures that are unfunded.
The Labor Party has indicated that it will cost the government $4.1 billion, split into three categories. Following the closure of the CDDS on 30 November 2012, there will be, firstly, the means-tested family tax benefit entitlement for children aged two to 17 years, which will commence in January 2014. This will be 13 months after some children will have lost access to the CDDS. The proposal is to provide a $1,000 capped benefit over two years to eligible children. The government claims 3.4 million children will be eligible and the unfunded cost for this measure will be $2.7 billion.
Secondly, the proposal for adults will not commence until 1 July 2014. This will be 19 months after the CDDS closes. Funding will be provided to state governments for public dental services. Services will no longer be available for adults through private dentists under Medicare. The unfunded cost for this measure will be $1.3 billion. Thirdly, an invitation to apply for funding under the Flexible Grants Program for dental infrastructure—both capital and workforce—will not commence until 2014. The unfunded cost for this measure is $225 million.
The government is rushing this bill through the parliament without having the necessary detail and without the proper scrutiny by parliament, even though it is not scheduled to commence until after the next election. I note that a specific schedule of services, fees and details of how the scheme will be funded is still not available. Even worse, the explanatory memorandum, for billions of dollars of spending, is just three pages long.
There is real concern in the community and with the Association for the Promotion of Oral Health, which the minister has acknowledged, that services for most children will cost less than the proposed $1,000 cap, but—and it is an important 'but'—there will be children on the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme who will require more services. As it stands at the moment there is no provision to ensure they continue to receive adequate treatment, especially in the period before the bill commences.
I understand that more than 60,000 services have been provided to children through the CDDS. When it closes on 30 November, there will be a 13-month gap for the children currently receiving treatment. These are children in the middle of treatment who will not be able to have their treatment completed by 30 November. With many unable to afford the full cost of private treatment, this will potentially have serious health, economic and social ramifications for these people. As such, it is those families that will have nowhere to turn.
The shadow minister, the member for Dickson, has already called on the health minister and the Greens to explain why these children must suffer for 13 months with unfinished treatment and no certainty of the schedule of services that are to be provided, even if the government actually delivers on its unfunded promise after the next federal election. Going on recent form, it is highly dubious that a Labor government would actually deliver on its promises.
The coalition does have legitimate concerns, and many members have raised their concerns today. The coalition has in the past offered to work with the previous health minister to refine and improve the scheme, including through a process for providing high costs items such as crowns and bridges, but these offers were rejected. As I have noted, we are also concerned about the children who will lose access to treatment on 30 November with the closure of the CDDS. We are also concerned about the children who will not be able to complete current treatment by 30 November. And we are concerned about the unfunded $2.7 billion cost of the measure. Equally concerning is that the schedule of services and fees and other essential details are not available, as the bill is being rushed through parliament. Therefore, the coalition proposes an inquiry with respect to these issues and then reserves the right to consider the findings and then will provide a policy response as required.
There have been claims that there were some dentists rorting the CDDS, and some use this as a justification for its repeal. I would say first that rorting has never previously concerned the Gillard Labor government, despite many warnings, in the pink-batts fiasco, in solar panel subsidies, or in the Building the Education Revolution. However, as a result of these claims, dentists have been pursued for minor and inadvertent paperwork mistakes. Of course, the coalition never supports rorting and does support this in any way. What we do support is a transparent and appropriate audit process to detect fraud and the misuse of taxpayers' funds. In most cases, the dentists being caught by the audit process did provide appropriate services to patients in need but merely did not comply fully with a technical requirement to provide general practitioners with treatment plans and patients with treatment plans and quotations for services prior to commencing treatment. As this was many of the dentists' first interaction with Medicare, you would expect some adaptation problems along the way to occur—teething problems you might say.
The information that we do have available from the Department of Health and Ageing is that the average claim per patient is $1,716, well below the allowable $4,250. Some recent estimates suggest that average cost per patient has fallen to below $1,200 per patient. It is reported that 80 per cent of services under the CDDS have been provided to concession card holders, and the evidence suggests that dental services have been predominantly utilised by low-income Australians. Many of these people would have otherwise been forced to go without treatment or added to the already 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists.
The government's vague promise of providing money to states and territories for public services is not due to commence until mid-2014, still leaving a gap of service provision. There are already 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists. Yet the health minister has said that Labor's plan will only provide 1.4 million additional services over six years. There are significant concerns that the lack of infrastructure, particularly in the public system, will impede the capacity to deliver the projected number of services as promised by Labor. The coalition will move to disallow the closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme to protect patients who will otherwise have to go without treatment for at least 19 months for adults and 13 months for children.
The health minister's recent announcements and today's legislation are a political attack on an effective policy set up by the Leader of the Opposition. I note that the coalition has renewed its commitment to work with the government to refine the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme and will work closely with providers and the public to ensure that real action is taken in the provision of dental care. We will build on the very proud record of the Leader of the Opposition's previous role as health minister.
Today's measures are not scheduled to come into effect until after the next federal election. The choice at that next election will be to vote for the coalition to provide hope, reward and opportunity for sick Australians requiring dental care.
I rise to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. Fundamentally, this bill aims to give Australians better oral health, healthier mouths and brighter smiles. It will amend the existing Dental Benefits Act to establish the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. Our government values the importance of healthy teeth and oral hygiene for our kids, ensuring that they do not encounter problems later in life—problems that, if exacerbated, could end up costing them and our economy much more: up to $2 billion per year. What we are debating here today is a great Labor investment in health, one that follows our historic tradition of health reform, including the establishment of Medicare.
As Emma Connors wrote in the Australian Financial Review last month, 'dentistry has largely operated in isolation from the rest of the health system in this country, even though the links are only too obvious to anyone on the front line.' Our government is seeking to put dental services at the forefront and seeking to address these as health issues. We want to create a generation of kids for whom visiting a dentist will be like visiting their regular GP, not a luxury item that many families cannot afford.
The bill extends the age range of those eligible to receive dental care, from children aged two to 17 years of age in families receiving the family tax benefit part A, Abstudy, carer payment, disability support pension, parenting payment and other social security payments—around 3.4 million kids in families earning less than $112,000; those are the people who will benefit. Current legislation provides dental checks for teens aged between 12 and 18 under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan.
This bill will replace that plan with the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, ultimately providing more services to many more children, with the Commonwealth taking on primary funding responsibility for basic children's dental services. Basic care will include such services as check-ups, cleaning, scaling, fluoride treatment and fillings. The services will be established under the Dental Benefits Rules, to be established at a later date, which will provide basic dental prevention and treatment services up to $1,000 for each child over a two-year period. We are strategically and fairly targeting low- and middle-income families who have gone for too long without adequate dental care. In my last newsletter I noted that, according to the Hunter Valley Research Foundation, who have been doing a wellbeing survey for some years now, more than 20 per cent of Hunter residents reported dental problems that had gone untreated in the previous 12 months—one in five people who do not attend to needed dental treatment. That is not good enough, but we have now taken these important steps to a better dental health system in Australia.
In addition to services for children, $1.3 billion of this funding will deliver 1.4 million extra services for those on low incomes, pensioners and those with special oral hygiene or oral health needs. The $2.7 billion Child Dental Benefits Scheme is part of our Labor government's $4.1 billion dental reform package, which was announced in August and funded over six years. We want to make it just as easy to visit the dentist as it is to visit the doctor for families, and we want to make dental care accessible to those people in the community who require it the most.
This package comes in addition to the $515.3 million public dental blitz that we announced in our 2012-13 budget. As we know, there are over half a million Australians on dental waiting lists, with many waiting for over a year to receive treatment. As a nation that prides itself on its health outcomes, this can be dramatically improved and we are moving towards that. By getting these people treated as soon as possible we are preventing problems from becoming exacerbated and escalating into something with more serious health implications down the track. The President of the Australian Dental Association, Dr Shane Fryer, has said that 'if dental care can be provided to children then their long-term dental health will be significantly improved'.
Our federal Labor government is boosting the public dental service workforce by funding additional training and improving infrastructure for practitioners in non-metropolitan Australia. We have stated this is a priority for our government and we are pleased that progress is being made. For too long there has been a city/bush divide in Australia when it comes to health care, and our government's reforms aim to bridge that gap through relocation grants and upgrades of dental facilities in those areas that require it.
This funding also provided $10.5 million to assist in the promotion of oral health, as was recommended in the report of the National Advisory Council on Dental Health. A 2007 report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's Dental Statistics and Research Unit at the University of Adelaide informs us that Australians born after 1970, the 'fluoride generation', have generally half the level of decay experienced by their parents' generation. The post-fluoride generation has made many gains when it comes to oral health; however, this has in some instances come at a cost of increased complacency. The oral health of Australian children has been in decline since the mid-1990s. By the age of 15, six out of every 10 children have experienced tooth decay. That is a fairly staggering statistic.
The Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing reports that those earning more than $60,000 per year have, on average, seven more teeth than Australia's poorest people on incomes less than $20,000. Filtered water and too much sugar, cordials and soft drinks, often a staple in the 21st century diet for many young children, are proving to be detrimental to the health of this generation's teeth and gums. By putting the public gaze back onto dental health we can make significant gains by simply reminding people to brush and floss regularly, watch their sugar intake and get their check-ups when needed. This announcement also provided $450,000 over three years to NGOs to assist with pro bono dental service to people with limited means, including homeless people, Indigenous Australians, women and children in shelters as well as refugees. Those opposed to our dental benefits amendment reform package—and that of course is those on the other side of this place—have frequently stated that we are spending too much on dental health, which ignores the fact that this is an investment that will end up saving in the long term.
I was interested to hear the member for Ryan saying that our moving of this policy and legislation was a political act. Well, for us it is not about politics. It is not about protecting the reputation of the member for Warringah, which the other side seem to think they have to do. It is about economic management, about fairness and about addressing a social agenda item that for too long has been neglected.
There has been lots of fear mongering about where the money is coming from and how we can possibly afford a social agenda that includes such wonderful things as the NDIS, aged care, dementia and dental health. Well, a country like ours, with a credit rating of AAA from the three international credit rating agencies—for the first time ever, and it was achieved under a federal Labor government—can afford this and has to make responsible cuts so that we can afford these important social initiatives. I quote the Prime Minister:
If you have the right values, the right priorities, you can budget responsibly and you can help the people who need it most. What we don't ever do is conduct ourselves like the conservatives who enjoy delivering the cuts.
I like what she said and I agree with it. Labor governments cut dental schemes for millionaires; Liberal governments sack ambulance officers. I do not buy the argument that this great nation cannot afford this, that we cannot make responsible adjustments in our budget that will allow us to afford this.
I notice that Piers Akerman wrote in the Sunday Telegraph that the Labor government was scrapping a hugely successful policy in favour of a dismally bad policy, which could not be further from the truth. He is of course referring to the member for Warringah's Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, which we are scrapping. It is a policy that is far removed from the description that Piers Akerman provided.
The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, designed by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, when he was health minister during the dying days of the Howard government, is the scheme we are scrapping, and rightly so. I was here then, unlike a lot of members on the other side, and I remember the rock-solid promises the member for Warringah failed to keep when it came to health care for this nation. This policy of his is a dud. It has been one of the most widely rorted health schemes ever implemented by an Australian government. As Health Minister Plibersek has stated, the Howard-Abbott Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was projected—and these are the projections of those supposedly financially responsible mangers on the other side—to cost $90 million per year. However, due to misuse and the lack of strategic targeting of that policy it ended up costing $80 million a month. And those opposed to our plan say that we are wasting money. Shame. It is costing $80 a month and it is not strategically directed at the people who need it most and, unfortunately, that scheme, whilst it definitely has assisted pensioners and those who could not afford treatment, has seen millionaires claim over $4,000 worth of free treatment on the taxpayers' wallet. This treatment even could have been purely cosmetic, such was the looseness of that policy. The scheme was not means tested, which is the way of the conservative government, and has seen many crowns for millionaires paid for by the taxpayers. These are people who should never, ever be on the teat of the government. They should never be exploiting a government policy that is aimed at people who cannot afford good dental care. In some cases, dentists were filling out paperwork and claiming rebates for work that was never actually done. So, if that dog's breakfast of a policy, designed by the Leader of the Opposition, is anything to go by, it shows what might happen should he ever return to government. The Australian people would be the losers from such a dreadful event.
Those who cannot afford treatment under our scheme will still be able to access it through the public system. But by ending the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme we are making significant savings that would otherwise have seen the well-off receive subsidised treatment. This is a nation of fairness, and it is always disappointing when people rort. We know that governments are there to share out the wealth of this nation, but do it in a way that is fair. That is what we expect and that is what should happen.
Currently in Australia around 20,000 children under the age of 10 are hospitalised every year because of poor oral health. These of course are just the children we know about and who then receive treatment, for there would be many more going undetected. Of children aged 12, 45.1 per cent have experienced decay in their permanent teeth, not their baby teeth but their permanent teeth. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare tells us that in 2007 around 46 per cent of six-year-olds who attend school dental services had a history of decay in their baby teeth. The National Advisory Council on Dental Health has reported this year that one-third of Australians are dependent on the market based fee-for-service system as they are not eligible for public dental service, and nor do they have private health insurance. In 2011 the Brotherhood of St Laurence's End the decay report stated that there are around 50,000 hospital admissions due to dental issues. These are hospital admissions that are preventable, as long as we make significant and required investments into the system.
Sadly, over 85 per cent of Australia's 11,000 dental practitioners work in the private sector, a statistic that is not representative of those who can afford treatment in such a system. Our government's reforms will ensure that the oral health of Australia ceases its decline. They are bold, cost-effective investments into the oral health of those who need it most, helping individuals lead healthier, happier lives, and ultimately being a benefit to the whole of society.
We are proud of our legislative reforms in dental health, because we know they will put a brighter smile on the face of millions of people across the country, including many for whom a visit to the dentist is a rare occasion—that is, if they can afford to visit at all. Good oral health means a healthy body and healthy mind and a very healthy society. I commend the bill to the House.
We could detain this House for a long time traducing each other's dental policy. What we are talking about here today, in this debate on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012, is exactly what this federal government is doing to dental care in Australia over the next 19 months. This government, which is responsible for continuity of care, has abandoned it with its program—a program launched to great fanfare but which is completely unfunded. That is right. Absolutely no financial arrangements have been made for the dental package it announced a couple of months ago. Why? This is a clever government with no money left. This government borrows every dollar it needs from the Middle East or overseas—because this nation is in debt to the tune of more than $100 billion a year. But this government will keep making billion-dollar promises until the polls improve. That is the reality of what is happening on that side of the chamber.
I will run through a quick history lesson in the seven minutes we have available. We know that state funded public dental care has long waiting lists. Up to three-quarters of a million people are waiting for care. What is the reality of that? With state funded dental care, unless you have a massive dental emergency, you simply do not get seen. Seniors who have chronic dental disease never get a chance—they have to roll up to private services. Australia has a private dental model. The 10,800 dentists around the country are almost exclusively in the private sector. How mad would you be to work in the public sector when you can make so much more money in the private sector? In Tasmania, as an example, there is a 30 per cent shortage of dentists when assessed against the per capita need—and dentists there earn 30 per cent more. It is a completely supply constrained private dental system.
It is true we are graduating 600 dentists a year and it is true we are graduating 300 hygienists and oral health specialists and therapists. But those numbers are not increasing fast enough—and there has not been any effort on that side of the House to look at what jobs can be done by the people who work with dentists. If that work were done by allied health professionals, it would free up dentists to do the work which can only be done by them. This is a government which has abandoned that frontier.
This is also a government which has abandoned the Chronic Dental Disease Scheme. That scheme was conceived by the current Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. He started from a simple proposition. He said that, if people are genuinely sick and dental issues are part of that chronic disease, they deserve treatment. That is placing the needs of the sick first. This Labor government are supplanting that. They are saying, 'No, it does not matter how bad your teeth are; if you are poor, you go to the front of the queue.' In a developed economy like Australia's, the reality is that dental disease is relatively evenly spread throughout the community. Having a concession card does not suddenly make your teeth bad. Earning a salary or getting a job does not suddenly make your teeth good. This is a government which has replaced a system designed to meet the needs of the sick with a system designed for the poor. The reality is that you have to look after both.
But this is a government which says—at least to adults—'For the next 19 months, if you have dental pain, our political pain comes first.' That is right. They are saying: 'We need a surplus, so you can all wait. You can all go back on the state dental lists and rot.' That is the reality. We know what states invest in dental care. We know that the ACT and NT lead the way. We know that New South Wales and Victoria are the poorest investors in state dental care. Those are the states where you wait the longest. In fact, you do not wait—because you never get the care. That is because the Labor state governments which set up those systems underfunded public dental care and have done so for eons. This mob over here says, 'We will find $1½ billion two elections from now and we will hand it to the state governments.' What will the state governments do with that money? This government will just hope the states spend it on dental care.
If you have a dental emergency, you can turn up to public state funded care and get that tooth pulled. If you need preventative care, those places will turn you away. What did Tony Abbott's scheme do? You went straight to the GP, you established that you had a chronic disease and your teeth were fixed through Australia's 95 per cent private dental system—immediately. It cost around $2,220 on average. For kids with chronic disease, it cost $2,125 on average. What did Tony Abbott's scheme do? Tony Abbott's dental plan slowly worked its way through the sickest Australians, fixing their teeth. For mental health patients, who have never known a health system to help them out, Tony Abbott's scheme put them at the front of the queue, got their teeth done, fixed their gingivitis and fixed their bridges and crowns. It got people with severe chronic disease teeth they could be proud of for the first time in their life.
Were there are a few cosmetic procedures in that scheme? Yes, there were. Was there a health justification for them? Yes, there was. Those of you on that side of the chamber talk about rorting—one in 1,500 cases. Does it happen any less with doctors than with dentists? Surely it happens in Medicare with doctors. Of course it does—probably in roughly the same proportions. Doctors are no different from dentists in that respect. It is part of the trust built into a universal system.
The state public dental waiting lists were reduced by Tony Abbott's scheme. The waiting times in New South Wales were cut by 40 per cent thanks to Tony Abbott's scheme. We have a GP centred health system. We allowed the GPs to work out who was sickest and who needed dental care most. That was the justification for Tony Abbott's scheme.
What was the second justification? The cost of getting your teeth fixed through the Chronic Dental Disease Scheme was indeed $2,225 per patient. What was it this year? It had fallen to $1,117. Why? Because all the serious work was done. We were seeing the scheme drop down a level to perform the role of surveillance, monitoring and long-term care of Australians' teeth. The hard work had been done.
That all stops now. That all stopped on 9 September when a government with no money left evoked an image of dental care 19 months from now—and they said: 'Our political pain is greater than your dental pain. If you have a dental problem, you can wait. Go back to the public scheme.' But the public scheme is already overrun because state governments underfund it. Let us go back to 1996 when the coalition government, inheriting someone else's economic mismanagement—Paul Keating's—said: 'You know what? That is the end of providing money to state governments, who don't use it well.' That is why the Howard government cut the scheme—because the more money you gave the state governments, the less got done. Nothing has changed. This government will see the same thing under their arrangement. They do not understand how dental economics works. The people who most need this care will not, if they do not have a concession card, get that care.
This government criticise dentists for overcharging, but then they conceive a scheme which gives $1,000 every two years to young people. Do they think that won't be open to abuse? Their scheme is exactly the same as Tony Abbott's scheme—except that it is treating kids instead of chronically ill seniors. It is a political shift to kids—doing that was worth more votes to the Prime Minister. Good luck to those kids who get a thousand dollars worth of care. But the government have not addressed any of the risks of overcharging in the system. Preventative dental care for teens and young kids, which could be done by hygienists, is being done by dentists at double or triple the cost. The government have not created any more oral health graduates—the numbers have increased by only a few per cent and the number of dental therapists has fallen by six per cent. So the work which could be done by allied health dental workers is being done by dentists at a much greater cost. At every level this is an unfunded, imaginative scheme that may never happen. It has been planned by a government that is trying to survive to the next election and that has in the same process traduced a scheme that looked after the chronically ill seniors who needed it most.
Debate interrupted.
I rise today to voice my disgust at the rank hypocrisy of the current government. Day after day in question time we listen to the government criticise state governments such as the LNP government in Queensland for making tough decisions to get their economy back on track. All while this government has wasted billions through its popcorn policies but is itself making massive cuts to cover its mistakes. It is making cuts to programs such as the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme; from November this year the chronically ill in Flynn will no longer have access to dental treatment through Medicare. It has ripped $25 billion from Defence since 2009. We see the results affecting every area of our defence forces, right down to cadet units in my electorate. Cadet units in Wondai, Biloela, Rosedale, Blackwater, Monto and Gladstone will now suffer because of these cuts. This government criticises the LNP for salvaging the Queensland economy whilst itself compromising the health of the chronically ill and the defence of our nation. The very fundamentals of our nation are at risk at the hands of the Gillard government. The people of Flynn and the rest of the nation deserve better than this hypocrisy.
I rise to congratulate Paralympic gold medallist Todd Hodgetts. Todd recently won the F20 division—the intellectual disability division—of the shot-put with a massive 16.29-metre throw. Todd, who has been a victim of bullying during his life, described the win as the best day of his life. He said it was just like being in a Hollywood movie.
Since the age of 14 Todd has been training three times a day with some great coaches. In the eyes of his father, Kevin, and his mother and brothers Todd did not have to win a medal to be a special person. Todd has a Tasmanian Institute of Sport scholarship and is a former weightlifter. He will be going to Rio to defend his title.
Todd's dad believes that there must be many more Olympians out there; they just don't know it. As Kevin said: 'If Todd can do it, anyone can do it.' This is a fantastic message for any budding athletes out there: don't be afraid to take a risk; don't be afraid to take a chance. You will never know if you don't have a go.
Congratulations, once again, to Todd on his fantastic effort. It is extremely well deserved. I am sure that we will be seeing you again, defending your title in Rio, Todd. I look forward to that. I encourage all Tasmanians to get behind our Paralympic superstar when he returns home and let him know that we are all very proud of his efforts and achievements. Well done, Todd!
Members in this chamber are always pleased to welcome their local schools to our national capital, and I am delighted today to be joined by students from Indooroopilly State School in the electorate of Ryan. The school is located in the foothills of Mt Coot-tha.
When I asked students to consider what I should speak about in parliament on behalf of my constituents, Paarangat Pushkarna proposed concerns about the environment. As he noted, situated in the north of the Ryan electorate is the D'Aguilar National Park, home to many species of flora and fauna and to expanses of forest. However, more funds for volunteer groups are required to maintain the scenic beauty of this park. The same situation affects many bush-care groups in Ryan. While most succeed in their endeavours, thanks to help from the local community and governments, others suffer due to a lack of volunteers, training and support.
I recently attended National Tree Day with the Cubberla-Witton Catchments Network in Ryan. This was an important event in our community and I agree with Paarangat that more frequent events like this could encourage wider community participation. Paarangat says this is the kind of contribution which could really change a community over the long term and requires only a small individual effort. The bushlands in the Ryan electorate, and right across Australia, are the key asset to our country's sustainable future and therefore need community and government support. I congratulate Paarangat and his fellow students on their care for and contribution to our local community.
I rise to talk about the local ABC radio on the Central Coast and to call for its services to be expanded. We have three hours of local ABC a day on the Central Coast. When you compare what they get in Lismore, Port Macquarie, the Illawarra, Bega and indeed here in Canberra, all of which have a similar population to the Central Coast—320,000 people live there—you realise that three hours is not enough.
We have a terrific presenter in Scott Levi, who does a great job in those three hours, but the people on the Central Coast want more. We want the ABC to fully resource the Central Coast and make sure that we get the full service. The Central Coast is not a new area. In 2005 it was recognised as an official area by the New South Wales Geographical Names Board. The New South Wales government declared the Gosford-Wyong area to be the Central Coast region, for planning purposes, in 2010. This Labor government along with the New South Wales government made sure that the Central Coast had its own area health service. The 2011 census recognised the Central Coast as a region for the first time. We have a tourism board now just for the Central Coast.
It is about time that the ABC recognised the Central Coast for the contribution it can make and made sure that we have the proper services. We need more than three hours of broadcasting a day. We need to be treated the same as other regional areas, the same as Canberra here in the ACT. We need the ABC to provide us with local service for our radio all day, every day.
I rise to table a 5,000-signature petition for the introduction into Australia of CyberKnife radiotherapy treatment. CyberKnife is a remarkable technology that has the capacity to save or improve the lives of hundreds of people who are suffering from cancer. It provides a precisely targeted robotic-arm radiotherapy treatment so that less damage is done to non-cancerous parts of the body. Importantly, this means that children can receive treatment, whereas under older radiotherapy technologies the damage to non-cancerous tissue is too great for children to receive it. CyberKnife is available in 32 countries around the world and should be available here.
The petition specifically calls for the speedy approval of CyberKnife and similar technologies through the Medical Services Advisory Committee process for the purposes of Medicare rebates. I would particularly like to commend Mr and Mrs Keith and Jenny Slater, who are the lead petitioners and who have led this campaign. They are local residents from my electorate who tragically lost their granddaughter, Kahlia, to a rare type of bone cancer. CyberKnife could have made a significant impact on her battle to survive. I urge the Minister for Health, on behalf of these 5,185 petitioners, to expedite the process so that CyberKnife can be approved for use in Australia. I present the petition.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of the concerned residents of Australia:
Draws to the attention of the House of Representatives to advanced radiotherapy treatments such as CyberKnife. These have two benefits over existing treatments. First, they deliver far more targeted radiotherapy treatment, significantly minimising the damage to non-cancerous parts of the body. Second, they enable radiotherapy to be delivered to some patients who otherwise could not receive radiotherapy, in particular, younger people and some other special cases. CyberKnife is available in 26 countries, including Canada, the UK, Germany and the USA.
We therefore ask the House to call upon the Federal Government to hasten approval of CyberKnife and similar technologies, with the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) for the purposes of Medicare rebates and thereby assist thousands of cancer sufferers in Australia.
from 5,185 citizens.
Petition received
I would like to talk today about a unique microbusiness that deserves special mention. It is in my electorate and it is called JACKmail. Some of you may have seen the red van around Canberra with the JACKmail logo on it. It is a postal pick-up and delivery service that caters to Canberra businesses, but it is a service with a difference. About five years ago, Sally and Mac—Jackson's parents—started a small business built around their son, Jackson, who has Phelan-McDermid Syndrome, which has deprived his brain of the proteins essential for brain development. Jackson has a profound intellectual disability and requires support for almost every activity of his daily life. Sally Richards decided to create a small business around what her son does best—that is, he is a fabulous walker, he can carry parcels, he loves car travel and listening to music. So a courier business made sense and with great business nous, she single-handedly established JACKmail.
Today, Jackson works five days a week and is helped by a truly wonderful Canberran, Philippe, who is Jackson's support worker and delivery driver. I have been told by some of the businesses who use JACKmail just how valuable and meaningful this service is. Each morning Philippe and Jackson arrive with a big welcome and greeting. Everyone says hello to Jackson, they make him feel welcome and valued, but he also provides a very important service—mail and parcel deliveries. As his mother Sally has said, Jackson now has a legitimate and valued place in the ACT business community.
Jackson has travelled over 67,000 kilometres, completed almost 18,000 deliveries, worked almost 5,000 hours and, most importantly, JACKmail has given Jackson a quality of life his mother could only have dreamed of before she established this microbusiness.
In my local surveys, one of the issues which come up time and time again is traffic congestion. Infrastructure in South Australia just has not kept pace with the increase in traffic and the increase in population. One of the greatest bugbears for my residents is the Oaklands Crossing at Diagonal Road and Morphett Road. There residents face long waits while trains pass. With the expansion of Marion shopping centre and also the new state aquatic centre, this is only expected to get worse. Therefore, it was welcomed that the state government announced that they would be looking at a feasibility study for this site. Just this week they have released a detailed concept design for elevated rail over the intersection. It is estimated to cost more than $100 million and involves an elevated station. However, there is no time frame. Without any money involved, it is just another empty, hollow promise, as was fixing Sturt Road and South Road in 2006, as was running trains to Flinders Medical Centre in 2008. What I say to the South Australian government is: where is the money?
I am normally resistant to the temptation of getting involved in shallow state parochialism, but there is only so much that the men and women of Western Australia can bear. The omission this week of Dockers Captain Matthew Pavlich from the AFL All-Australian side is perhaps the best recent indication that when you come from the other side of the Nullarbor you have to be twice as good to be recognised half as often. With this season still unfinished, Pavlich has kicked more goals than any other player. At the end of the regular season, he finished second in the Coleman Medal and had more possessions, more goal assists and more score assists than the player who was selected at full forward, Geelong's Tom Hawkins.
In any case, I want to congratulate the Fremantle Dockers and their captain on what has been a magnificent effort this year. The coach Ross Lyon is right to say that the real achievements lie ahead and are yet to be won, but I know that win, lose or draw, Fremantle supporters have always been proud of the side, which plays with heart, loyalty and honour. In that way, the Fremantle Dockers certainly reflect and draw strength from the character and history of their home in Fremantle.
I am absolutely thrilled with the news that Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall will visit the electorate of Maranoa this year. As announced by the Prime Minister, the royal couple will visit Longreach during their six-day visit to Australia from 5 November to 10 November as Her Majesty the Queen's personal representatives in this diamond jubilee year. To borrow the words from Clancy of the Overflow in that wonderful poem by Banjo Paterson:
And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended,
And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars.
That is where Longreach in Western Queensland is centred, right in the heartland of that sort of scene as penned by Banjo Paterson so long ago. Let me take you through a quick tour of Longreach, which is set among the vast Mitchell grass plains of outback Queensland, with star-studded night skies and people with a very firm handshake. Longreach is home to the Qantas Founders Museum and the Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame and Outback Heritage Centre. The Prince of Wales has a very special connection with the hall of fame as he has been patron there since 1998. Longreach is not far also from where Banjo Paterson penned our unofficial national anthem, Waltzing Matilda, at Winton in 1895 and in the other direction is the Labor Party's foundation at Barcaldine, the Tree of Knowledge. The Prince of Wales last visited Australia in 2005 and this will be the first visit to Australia by the Duchess of Cornwall. This is a wonderful announcement and the outback communities of Maranoa and across many parts of rural Australia, including the people of Longreach, I know will give the royal couple a welcome they will never forget. (Time expired)
The people of Ipswich and Blair are already feeling the impact of Campbell Newman's slash and burn budget, with the unemployment rate in Ipswich going up from 4.7 per cent in July 2012 to six per cent in August 2012. At 5.1 per cent, Australia has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the industrial world. Since we have been in power, we have created 800,000 jobs. In the Ipswich area, tens of thousands of jobs have been created from BER projects, the Ipswich Motorway and nation-building projects, but what do those opposite do? There is not a word from any of the LNP members in Queensland about what Campbell Newman is doing across the state of Queensland.
In Ipswich and the West Moreton region community services and tenancy services have been slashed. We have also seen the Skilling Queenslanders for Work program slashed. In the Ipswich community we have lost $4.5 million from Skilling Queenslanders for Work job creation programs, from Ipswich City Council, from Boystown and from Riverview Neighbourhood House. We have seen Harvest Rain Theatre Company lose funding. These are the consequences of the LNP government in Queensland, the curtain raiser for the Leader of the Opposition. That is what we would see if those opposite got onto the Treasury benches—slash and burn. The Western Corridor and Ipswich are suffering once again from the tyranny of a coalition government.
Good on Teachers for coming second, but Uni beat Brothers in the Rugby League grand final—that was the main thing. The Cowboys were deadset ripped off—I think that must be said. 'The hand of God,' my backside! It was nothing to do with the hand of God. That Manly supporters can sit up there and make an honest member from Townsville fly a flag is immoral!
Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Today marks the day that the Leader of the Opposition and I return from having attended three soldiers' funerals. We have been engaged in a sad and sombre duty attending the funerals of Private Nathanael Galagher, Lance Corporal Mervyn McDonald and Sapper James Martin. I am sure I can speak on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Defence and the shadow minister for defence and say that, whilst this was a sad duty, it also came with a real sense of privilege. We spent some time with some families who are grieving deeply—and we grieve with them. Two families of the five soldiers we lost that day elected to have private funerals. But their grief is very real too, and I know all members of the House would be thinking of the families of Private Robert Poate and Lance Corporal Stjepan Milosevic.
Today also marks a day of return for me from a short period of leave associated with the death of my father. I want to take this opportunity to thank everybody in this House and beyond who, in huge numbers, have offered their condolences to me and my family—to my mother, Moira; to my sister, Alison; and to my niece and nephew, Jenna and Tom, my father's granddaughter and grandson. We have been overwhelmed by people's kindness. We have been particularly overwhelmed when attending funerals in the past few days that people who have lost someone so young would take the opportunity to offer their condolences on the loss of my father. My father died at 83, so it is a different thing from a man dying in his 20s, 30s or 40s—a very different thing.
My father led a very full life and a very happy life—a life that brought him from Cwmgwrach in the valleys of Wales to this great country, a life in which he got to pursue his dreams from the time of being a small boy. He grew up in a state of hardship. It was not unknown for him to literally not have enough food. He grew up in a coalmining village and he was one of seven children. They did not have much money. He also did not have the opportunity at that stage of his life to fulfil his dreams for a further education. He passed highly in the 11-plus exams of those times—indeed, so highly that he won a scholarship—but his family could not afford to not have him work, so he left school at 14 and he always felt very keenly the loss of opportunity that leaving school at that age brought. Despite that, though, he was very determined to make something of his life. So, as he went through his life's journey, he continued to study—firstly, A levels and O levels at night school and then to become a police officer in the town of Barry in Wales. It was there that he met my mother, a policewoman. He confessed to my partner, Tim, that the initial point of attraction was her black stockings. On the basis of such things was almost 55 years of marriage made. They would have celebrated their 55th wedding anniversary in December this year.
My father and mother took a life-changing decision, and that was to migrate to this great nation. I cannot imagine what the difference in our lives would have been had they not taken that decision and had we stayed in Wales. I cannot imagine what that would have brought for my sister and me. But migrate they did, to Adelaide, to a wonderful place—and I acknowledge other members in the parliament who represent the great state of South Australia. And in Adelaide they found a life of huge opportunity. My father got the opportunity to study again and to pursue for more than two decades what became the most important part of his working life, his work as a psychiatric nurse. He very much enjoyed—indeed, loved—that sense of care and compassion that he got to give people with mental illness in our society.
But, in truth, his life's work was the nurture of his family—of me and my sister initially. It is certainly true that I would not be standing here if my father had not brought from the Welsh valleys a deep sense of attachment to Labor values, a profound belief in the benefits of unionism and also a profound belief in the life-changing nature of education. I would not be standing here if it were not for that.
My father, through me, got to live a life in politics, at one remove. He was deeply interested in politics and he marvelled at every part of it. He enjoyed coming and sitting and watching in this chamber. He enjoyed meeting people from both sides of politics. He got the opportunity to meet some of the Labor heroes who shaped his adult life—people like Bob Hawke. He was mesmerised by the functioning of this place. I took him to the press gallery once. He came back full of excited stories about meeting Kerry O'Brien and Michelle Grattan—people who for him had been storybook heroes. He got to meet them face to face and very much enjoyed it.
He was also very conscious of the rigours of the life that we lead and the hard work. He would chide me sometimes for working too hard. I would remind him that he was the man who not only worked shift work and took all the overtime that was available in that shift work but also worked a second job when we were very young, and so he too knew about hard work and the benefits of it. He understood that this life comes with moments of stress and strain. He felt more deeply than I, in many ways, some of the personal attacks that we face in the business of politics, but I was always able to reassure him that he had nurtured a daughter with sufficient strength to not let that get me down.
If I gave him many of the highs and the lows of his life, my sister, Alison, really built the contours of his everyday life for him. Her staying in Adelaide, her bringing into the world his very beloved granddaughter, Jenna, and grandson, Tom, was the stuff of his everyday life. He made them—Jenna and Tom—the centre of his world for a very long time. He was tremendously proud of them, tremendously proud of Tom getting an electrical apprenticeship and then completing it, tremendously proud of Jenna's PhD in biotechnology. Indeed, even in relatively recent times he was heard to say to virtually anybody who would listen that his daughter Julia had done very well becoming Prime Minister but that Jenna was really the smart one in the family! He believed that very deeply, with the PhD. He also embraced our extended family—my partner, Tim; Jenna's husband, Damien; and Tom's girlfriend, Laura—and they became a very important part of his existence.
My father was a very proud Australian, but he tried to instil in my sister and I a sense of our Welsh origins. This would take many forms, but one of the least favoured forms, I would have to say, was to make us listen to Richard Burton, a Welshman, reading the poems of Dylan Thomas, a Welshman. He had as a very prized possession a floppy 45 record—and hopefully there are others in the parliament old enough to remember those floppy 45 records!—of Richard Burton reading Dylan Thomas. One of our least favoured activities as small girls was being required to sit in reverent silence and listen to this for what seemed to us like hour after hour. But, as a result, I grew up listening to Dylan Thomas saying to his father to 'rage, rage against the dying of the light' and to 'not go gentle into that good night'. The last thing my father taught me was that in the life of a man there is a moment to go gentle into that good night. And so it was. Thank you.
On behalf of the coalition—and I suspect on behalf of all members of the parliament—I welcome the Prime Minister back after her bereavement leave. This is a tragic time for her, and we all feel for her at this very difficult and sad time. I also acknowledge the sad duty that the Prime Minister and I have been engaged in over the last few days attending military funerals. They are very sad occasions. But they are proud occasions, because the departed have done their duty, by their mates and by our country.
I again acknowledge John Gillard, who has done his country proud in producing such a daughter. It is a remarkable parent who produces a Prime Minister of this country. I acknowledge his journey from the valleys of Wales to this wide brown land. It is a journey I am a little familiar with, as my own maternal grandmother grew up in the village of Gelligaer, a former mining town on the south coast of Wales. For John Gillard, as for Phyllis Lacey, my grandmother, Australia has been a land of opportunity—although the same journey provided different political destinations, I hasten to add, in those cases.
We all know the place good parents have in the hearts of their children, and the coalition continues to extend its deepest sympathies to the Prime Minister.
I table new shadow ministerial arrangements.
The document read as follows—
COALITION SHADOW MINISTRY
Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.
In addition, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP will act as Shadow Cabinet Secretary
I inform the House that the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will answer questions in relation to housing and homelessness and on behalf of the Minister for Human Services. The Assistant Treasurer will answer questions in relation to small business. The Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism will be absent from question time today and tomorrow as he is attending the LNG Producer-Consumer Conference in Japan. The Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that his own Labor MPs in Wills, Page, Chifley and Bass, and Senator Cameron, have all expressed concern about how Labor is going to pay for its $120 billion of big new spending promises. Treasurer, what is the answer? Where is the money coming from? What taxes will you increase to make up the $120 billion?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for that question, because we always have good conversations about good public policy in our caucus, and we certainly had a good discussion yesterday. I think everybody in our caucus is absolutely proud of the fact that Standard & Poor's has reaffirmed our AAA rating—our gold-plated AAA rating—with a stable outlook. Think about that for a moment. There are only seven countries that have that rating.
Thanks to the Howard government.
There was an interjection from over there saying, 'Thanks to the Howard government'. This is the first time in our history that we have had the AAA gold-plated rating from the three major rating agencies, not something achieved by those on that side of the House—never.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: he is giving an entirely different answer to the question that was asked. I asked about his own Labor MPs asking where the money was coming from.
If it is the case that the opposition objects to the member or any minister responding to interjections, perhaps they should just not interject.
The Treasurer has the call.
I am directly answering the question, because our AAA rating goes to the core of our fiscal discipline, which has been recognised by the rating agencies—indeed, cited by the rating agencies for their reaffirmation of our gold-plated AAA rating. Those opposite do not even understand that most basic fact. When we moved to support our economy during the global financial crisis, to support jobs and small business, we put in place fiscal rules to bring our budget back to surplus when growth returned to trend. And that is what the government has been doing.
During that time, based on our Labor values, we have found room for Labor priorities, such as paid parental leave and a big increase in the pension, by making savings. We have done all of that in the face of very large revenue write-downs, to the tune of $150 billion. We have done all of that and we will continue to adhere to our fiscal rules as we make room for Labor priorities. We have done the hard work to find the savings. But there we saw again this morning, once again on breakfast television—but this time he was on his own—
I see the Manager of Opposition Business rise on a point of order. The Treasurer will return to the question before the chair.
I was asked about savings and I have said very clearly that the government will find the savings to fund Labor priorities. I am drawing the very clear contrast with the shadow Treasurer who, on breakfast television, admitted again this morning there was a $70 billion crater in the Liberal Party's bottom line.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Treasurer will return to the question.
For our part, we in the government will continue to implement responsible fiscal policy, making the savings to fund Labor priorities in difficult environments, because that is what we do. We understand the importance of both good economic management and putting in place Labor priorities. (Time expired)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Given the Treasurer just referred to Standard and Poor's, I refer him to this advice that has just come out that says: 'Standard and Poor's says Australia is heading for a $20 billion-plus deficit.' This has just come out. Treasurer, please explain where the money is coming from.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! It is a supplementary because it is referring to the answer given by the Treasurer.
I welcome the question. We have just had our AAA rating reaffirmed, based on the fiscal discipline that this government has shown and what we are publishing in our budgets. They have confirmed that it is our strong fiscal discipline that has underpinned their rating. They have pointed to our low public debt. They have pointed to our economic resilience. He can say anything he likes, but he cannot jump that hurdle, because this government has done the hard yards. We will continue to do the hard yards to support jobs, whereas those on the other side of the House want to take the axe to public spending—like they are doing in Queensland, like they are doing right up the eastern seaboard. There is a very clear contrast here.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Treasurer will refer to the question. The member for North Sydney is seeking to table a document?
I am. I seek to table the report of S&P that says Australia is heading for a $20 billion deficit this year, confirming the opposition's—
Leader of the House, is leave granted?
No. I table 'Jamie Briggs pushes for return to individual employment contracts' by Mark Kenny in the Adelaide Advertiser.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's plan for school improvement? Why is it important that state governments work with the federal government to invest in our schools?
I thank the member for Greenway for her question, because a little bit earlier today the member for Greenway, the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth and I, accompanied by a number of others—New South Wales Labor MPs—had the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Catholic schools sector and from independent schools. We had, in particular, the opportunity to discuss our plans for school improvement and our plans to ensure that a child's needs are put at the centre of our education funding system. We had the opportunity to talk about building our future by better investing in Australian schools. We particularly had the opportunity to meet with Bishop Anthony Fisher of Parramatta and representatives of New South Wales independent schools.
Those representatives spoke to us of their concerns about the very negative impact that the cuts by the Liberal New South Wales state government will have on non-government schools. Indeed, Bishop Anthony Fisher was very clear about his concerns for the west of Sydney, particularly for smaller Catholic schools that are smaller now but destined to rapidly grow because of the growth in western Sydney and on whom these cuts will fall especially heavily. We talked about our determination, as representatives in this place, to work with Catholic and independent schools in New South Wales to campaign against these cruel cutbacks by the O'Farrell government.
As Prime Minister and as someone who is very concerned about the future of education, I indicated to those representatives that we will not let Liberal government state cutbacks feed into the way in which we fund schools. At the moment, as result of the way school indexation is done, when Liberal governments cut, that feeds into federal government indexation rates. We will not allow that to occur. We will not allow the conduct of Premier O'Farrell and his Liberal mates around the country to drag down the investment of the federal government in schools around our nation. There could not be a clearer contrast in the approach that we take to education than this. We on this side of the House are passionate about creating opportunity and a better future for our children through a great education. The Liberal Party are proving, every day, around the country, that they stand for denying children that opportunity of a great education. They stand for cutting funding to schools. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer her to her statement on 11 February last year, which I quote: 'Every time we announce something we properly account for it and properly fund it.' Prime Minister, where is the money accounted for in the budget for $10.5 billion a year for the NDIS, $6.5 billion for schools, $36 billion for submarines and $2.1 billion for re-establishing Nauru and Manus? Prime Minister, where is the money coming from?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I particularly thank him for referring to statements that I made earlier this year, because I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that at the start of this year as we came into this parliamentary year I said that the principal battle ground for this year would be on the economy—on jobs, on services and on the federal budget—and the ability to properly provision for the services and supports that families need. I am delighted, even though it has taken until September, that the Leader of the Opposition is finally coming to meet us on this battle ground of central concern to the Australian community.
I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is now indicating by his conduct that at the centre of the political debate between now and 2013 and at the core of the election campaign in 2013 will be who is best—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is talking a lot about how delighted she is to answer the question but she is not actually answering the question. When is she going to get to the point and be directly relevant?
The Prime Minister has the call.
I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is now indicating that at the centre of the 2013 campaign will be who can best run the economy and who can best manage the federal budget. If that is to be the contest, we will be absolutely delighted. In that contest, what we will do every step of the way is continue to bring our Labor values to the choices that we make in the government budget. We are a government that has found $130 billion for savings in order to fund Labor priorities.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will refer to the question before the chair.
We have as a government, across the budgets we have delivered, brought our Labor values to sometimes very tough choices.
Mr Robb interjecting—
The member for Goldstein is warned!
We have been prepared to make changes to the budget, savings in the order of $130 billion, in order to fund Labor priorities. We will continue to do that, continue to make the right choices, so that we can fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, so that we can fund a better future for our children. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: what I can say for the government is, through MYEFO and through the budget and then through the process of the election campaign, we will publish all of the credentialled figures through Treasury. You will know where we stand and what we value from the figures that we make sure are checked and are right and are published.
The Leader of the Opposition will not match that commitment. Having gone through the last election campaign and generated an $11 billion black hole, he stands today for $70 billion worth of cutbacks and he is on the run from revealing that truth. We will be very pleased to lay our values open for inspection. We stand by them and we are proud of them. (Time expired)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: throughout that whole question, on the front bench it was impossible to hear the Prime Minister's answer from constant interjections from those opposite. It cannot be parliamentary to yell through an entire answer to the extent that, on our front bench, we are unable to hear the answer.
The Attorney-General will resume her seat.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. As with previous speakers, I will not entertain this type of discussion during question time, but I will refer everybody to standing order 65(b).
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. With $120 billion of unfunded spending commitments, with revenues falling and now with a damning Standard & Poor's report, does the Prime Minister still claim that the government is on track to deliver a budget surplus this financial year?
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned!
I think today the opposition is proving it can bellow but it cannot budget. What we are going to hear from the opposition is lots of bellowing but what they will not do during any point of this question time or any day between now and the 2013 campaign is promise that they will get their figures properly checked by Treasury. Eleven billion dollars out the back door in the election campaign in 2010—
The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will refer to the question before the chair.
I am asked about budgeting and how you make sure that you are making the right choices to return the budget to surplus. I am indicating that as a government we are determined to make the right choices. We are determined to go through the proper processes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister cannot redefine the question. She was asked if they are still committed to a $1½ billion surplus this financial year in light of Standard & Poor's damning assessment of their budget.
The Prime Minister has the call.
I am indicating to the opposition the following: we are determined to bring the budget to surplus. Standard & Poor's have given us a AAA credit rating. Indeed, we have a AAA credit grade rating from all three major ratings agencies—never achieved during the life of the Howard government. No amount of bellowing from the opposition is going to turn a AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's into anything else. The premise of the Leader of the Opposition's question is absurd. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is asking it as a hypocrite, because he will not commit himself—
Order! The Prime Minister will withdraw.
I withdraw. The Leader of the Opposition has a double standard and he should end that.
An opposition member: Your time's up!
I will remind everybody that it is my call, and the constant calling of that is not assisting the dignity of this parliament.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on developments in Afghanistan arising from recent International Security Assistance Force operational decisions.
Stop ripping money out of Defence!
The member for Canning is warned!
Honourable members interjecting—
The Minister for Defence has the call. I would have thought this was a question we could hear in silence.
I thank the member for Canberra for her question. The question relates to Afghanistan and recent ISAF operational directions. As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have reminded us in a different context earlier today, these ISAF directions—International Security Assistance Force directions—follow five terrible fatalities, so far as Australia is concerned, and three of those from so-called green-on-blue or insider incidents. Yesterday, we saw the last of those five funerals, for young Sapper James Martin in Perth.
The first green-on-blue incident against Australia occurred more than 12 months ago and since that time we have been working very closely with General Allen, Commander ISAF, to improve the force protection mechanisms which apply in this area and to do everything we can to minimise the risk to Australian Defence Force personnel.
Regrettably and terribly, we have seen in recent times a growing number of such incidents, directed, in the main, against United States and United Kingdom personnel but against ISAF generally. Since our own first terrible incident more than 12 months ago, we have enhanced our force protection measures and taken a range of steps to minimise the risk. We have worked closely with General Allen in that respect.
In response to the terrible number of incidents recently and in response to heightened tensions as a result of the so-called Innocence of Muslims video, at the beginning of this week General Allen, Commander ISAF, issued a directive which does not have the effect, as I have seen reported, of ceasing all partnered operations between ISAF and the Afghan National Security Forces; it has the effect that partnered operations are now to be conducted at battalion or Kandac level, which is dealing with some 500 or 600 army personnel, and that below that level—for partnered patrols, for example—the approval of the relevant Regional Command commander is required.
In Australia's case, in Uruzgan we are part of Regional Command South. So, to engage in partnered patrols we now need the approval of the regional commander. On Monday and Tuesday of this week, as a result of that directive, no joint patrols were conducted, because that is below Kandac level. Today in Uruzgan our commanders will be speaking with Kandac commanders about the plans that the Kandac commanders have for individual patrols so far as the ANA in Uruzgan is concerned, but also to now mount the case—to approach Regional Command South for permission—to resume joint patrols. I am not putting a timetable on that. That will be an operational matter. In the meantime, all of the commanders have been asked to review force protection measures and to minimise risk against these so-called insider incidents.
As transition proceeds it will be the case, in the not too distant future, that it will be the Afghan National Army itself who will be conducting patrols by themselves as Australia and the International Security Assistance Force essentially retreat to an adviser role. In the meantime, our judgement of transition is that we continue to progress. It is, of course, continuing to be a difficult and dangerous circumstance and I know the ADF— (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to comments by Deloitte Access Economics director, Chris Richardson, in relation to the government's $120 billion black hole: 'Our budget doesn't add up anymore.' Will the Treasurer guarantee that the Future Fund will not be raided to pay for the government's unfunded spending commitments?
I thank the shadow minister for his question, because I made the point before that we will go about, in the preparation of our mid-year update—as we do through the normal budget process—putting in place the savings that are required to fund our priorities, and, in particular, putting in place economic settings which will ensure growth and making sure we do the most we possibly can to generate growth and to support jobs in our economy. That is all the more important because of the savage cuts that are going on across the eastern seaboard by conservative governments, who are hacking into jobs. That is not good for many families and the peace of mind of regional communities in this country.
What about the Future Fund?
The Treasurer will return to the question before the chair.
So, as we go through the preparation of MYEFO, we will do the normal thing that we always do, which is to find savings. We will do that in a responsible way. That will contrast, I think, quite markedly with those opposite, because what we will do, as we go about that, is adhere to the Charter of Budget Honesty. We will do that in the mid-year update as we will do it in the budget next year. And there will be a very clear contrast—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the raiding of the Future Fund. He has not mentioned the Future Fund in his answer. It is all irrelevant.
The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
As I said, I think, in the House yesterday—and I will say it again today—as we go through the preparation of the mid-year update, we will find the savings that are required to make sure there is room for our priorities. As we go through that, we do not provide a commentary on any allegation made by anybody, wherever they come from—least of all from those opposite. This was the practice of the previous government as well, so there is absolutely nothing unusual about that. But we do know a bit more about budget craters. As we can see here, we had the shadow Treasurer, on breakfast television with the minister for the environment, admit a $70 billion crater.
The Treasurer will no longer use props.
Madam Deputy Speaker—
The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. Props are not tolerated. The Treasurer should return to the question before the chair.
There was a repeat performance this morning on breakfast television. There is a $70 billion crater. So they can huff and they can puff but they are not going to blow their crater away.
My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that there is no safe anchorage on the entire Sunshine Coast, from Townsville to Cairns? With the Queensland government's decision to close yet another service vital to the north, the Reconstruction Authority, could the Treasurer assure us that the federal government's allocated $5.5 million to build the Mission Beach breakwater will be preserved for that purpose? Further, could he address the Yasi damage to Port Hinchinbrook and consider resumption of the harbour below high water in order to facilitate reconstruction?
I have to congratulate the member for Kennedy—in time!
I thank the member for Kennedy for that question. I have to say I thought it was some sort of sick joke when I read in the Queensland budget papers that they intended to abolish the Reconstruction Authority. There has been a very substantial commitment to the rebuilding of Queensland made by the Commonwealth, particularly tropical North Queensland—well over $1 billion.
I have been up there on many occasions with the member for Kennedy and I know he has worked his guts out getting around those communities, working out what needs to be done, trying to ensure that it is done promptly and trying to ensure that the guidelines that the Commonwealth has put in place are adhered to, particularly by the state authorities but also by the councils. So I take this matter very, very seriously—in particular the matter at Mission Beach, where we are trying to provide an all-weather safe harbour. We have allocated $5.5 million towards the planning and construction of an all-weather boating facility. That is really important up there for that local economy and it is certainly very important for safety. Enormous damage was done to industry in that area—to rural industry on the one hand and the tourist industry on the other. So we take this very seriously and we will do everything within our power to ensure that that money is correctly spent there at Mission Beach.
The broader question of other areas and other harbours is much more difficult, and I cannot say I can give him at this stage any great comfort about that because they are very difficult challenges. What I can assure him of is the absolute determination of the Gillard Labor government to ensure that the money that is provided to Queensland is properly and correctly spent to the benefit of Queenslanders and in particular to the benefit of all of those people that live in tropical North Queensland.
When we look at the proposal to abolish the Reconstruction Authority, I guess that it will be another one of those slash-and-burn proposals that the Leader of the Opposition gives a very big tick to, because he has given a big tick to making very big cuts in terms of jobs, in terms of health and in terms of education. But all of us on this side of the House do understand the importance of the rebuild in Queensland. We understand the damage done in particular to the Queensland economy and also to the Australian economy. Unlike those opposite we do not pretend that it did not happen. We understand the damage that was done and we have backed it with a lot of cash to support Queenslanders who had great need during that period. We will continue to do that and to do absolutely everything we can to ensure that our money is spend correctly by local authorities and by the state government.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Myanmar led by the Speaker, the Honourable Thura U Shwe Mann—which I pronounced very badly; I apologise. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. How have recent school funding announcements by the federal and state governments been received by the community? What would be the impact of these funding decisions on our schools?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. As the Prime Minister said, we met here today with members from the non-government schools sector of New South Wales and with caucus members from New South Wales as well. The community values the support that is provided to schools in funding, and the New South Wales Liberal government's cuts to schools mean things like fees going up, class sizes increasing and curriculum options narrowing. We heard that when we met today, and those views have been echoed by principals, teachers and parents around New South Wales. Listen to what the Principal of St Felix Primary School in south-west Sydney said: 'We have students with very specific learning needs. The withdrawal of state funding will be devastating to our families.' The executive director of Catholic schools in Parramatta said to the Rouse Hill Times that the cuts represent:
… betrayal by a government which has shown a lack of understanding of what is needed to deliver quality learning and teaching in today's world.
That understanding is completely absent.
But of course the New South Wales Liberal government's cuts do not just hit the non-government schools; they hit support for government schools, they hit school front-office staff, and they hit TAFE students by increasing their fees and sacking teachers. And this is after the Gonski review told us that we need to be investing in more support, that we need to be providing our students with more opportunities. Instead, the New South Wales Liberals have gone the other way.
In this House, federal New South Wales state MPs have gone into bat for their schools against the New South Wales government cuts. They introduced a private member's motion so that we can debate those cuts. So I think it is time for the Leader of the Opposition to move on from the end-of-the-world sound bites and come in and make a contribution to this debate, because it is clear that these types of cuts from state coalition governments are a curtain raiser to what the opposition leader has in store if he should win at the next election.
Again, on ABC 24, the member for North Sydney confirmed the Liberal Party's $70 billion black hole. So how will the opposition leader fill it? What is he going to do? As he said to the press this morning:
… I respect the job that they're—
the Liberal Premiers are—
doing. I work closely with them as far as I can. But they are dealing with their problems at the state level and I will seek to deal with federal problems at our level.
You talk about code for what is going to happen—that is open-source code. This is plainly saying that the same savage cuts to health and education that we have seen in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria will be visited upon us in this House if the Leader of the Opposition should ever occupy the Treasury bench. He has already promised $2.8 billion in cuts—cuts to teachers training, cuts to computers and cuts to school facilities, and we know he wants to cut more. How is he going to cut more? It will be in education and health.
Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. How will this situation particularly affect schools in my electorate, the seat of Robertson in New South Wales?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be some sloppiness creeping into the government's supplementary questions. How can the minister be asked a question about state government responsibilities, which are not within his portfolio? How could that be within his portfolio responsibilities? At least the initial question had an obeisance to the federal government responsibilities. The supplementary bore no relationship—
The question was in order. The minister has the call.
The member for Robertson takes a very keen interest in the schools in her electorate. In the Diocese of Broken Bay, impact on non-government schools, particularly on those smaller non-government schools that provide important education in her electorate, will be felt hardly. This Labor government has provided to the member for Robertson in her electorate $80 million in 97 projects benefiting 45 schools—seven libraries, eight multipurpose halls, 30 classrooms, 9,000 computers. I mean, that is the difference.
When the shadow minister, who takes no interest in education whatsoever, tries to take a point of order—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Order! The member for Sturt is warned!
he might like to try and explain why it is in the member for Robertson's electorate and in his own electorate as well, that every bit of significant additional investment that has gone into the schools has come from this Labor government. They are the facts. That is what we are dealing with today. The member for Robertson can see the benefits in her electorate and she knows—as do I, as do members on this side—that, as we look at the way in which the New South Wales government is visiting savage cuts on education right across the state, those cuts will be felt in her electorate as well. Finally, for a shadow opposition minister who thinks it would be a good idea to sack one in seven teachers, the Liberal Party's commitment to education has never been better said.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The member for Sturt will withdraw. He knows he has other forms of the House in which he can air his grievance.
I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Indeed, the member for Sturt can make a personal explanation at his earliest convenience but I would say that perhaps it would be a bad precedent to set during question time. I will allow him the opportunity to do that at the end of question time. The member for Goldstein has the call.
Government members interjecting—
My apologies, I ask the member to withdraw.
I withdraw.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that in the four months since the budget, the number of unemployed has risen by 18,000, many companies are reporting falling profits and there has been a sharp decline in commodity prices. Does the Prime Minister stand by the budget forecast that tax revenues will rise this financial year by almost $34 billion?
I thank the member for his question. Firstly, I would say to the member that I think it is very important that in this place we do not talk down the fundamental strength of the Australian economy. I would remind the member that our budget forecasts are predicated on the basis that commodity prices would peak during 2011. So we understood, in preparing the budget, that the commodity price peak part of the resources boom was being reached but we also understood that we were going to see increasing export volumes and that we were seeing an investment pipeline of $500 billion with more than $200 billion of it at an advanced stage.
Yes, when we look at the Australian economy today, we can look across the range of indicators about the health of the economy whether we are looking at growth, whether we are looking low inflation, whether we are looking at low interest rates or whether we are looking at an unemployment rate of just over five per cent, which around most of the world people would look at as a remarkable result. Imagine some of those towns in America and the circumstances of unemployment there. Imagine what is happening Spain and much of Europe and what is happening in the United Kingdom. So it is inappropriate and wrong for members of the opposition to come into this parliament and talk the Australian economy down.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. It was quite a simple and straightforward question. Does the Prime Minister stand by the budget forecast for the increase in revenue? Yes or no?
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
I was pointing out it was a question the sole purpose of which was to create fear and concern about the Australian economy. That is not appropriate conduct by the shadow minister for finance. It is not appropriate conduct by the opposition leader but it fits in with their relentless negativity—that is for sure.
On budget forecasts, as the member ought to recall from his time in government, the way in which this works is budget forecasts are updated in the Midyear Economic and Fiscal Outlook, they are updated again in the budget and then, moving into the election, they will be updated in the pre-election fiscal outlook. And every step of the way we will engage in properly funded, properly costed policies, whereas the member who asked the question, who has acknowledged he has to cut $70 billion out of services for families, is trying to cover that up. Over here, we will make sure the Australian people have all of the information they need. If we are going to have this fiscal debate then the member should come to the dispatch box and should say he is prepared to get the opposition's policies properly costed; otherwise, why would anybody take him seriously?
My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Minister for Social Inclusion and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform. How is the government supporting charities and not-for-profit organisations to do their job of helping some of the most vulnerable Australians? Why is it important for these organisations to be free to work and advocate for the people they support?
I thank the member for Petrie for her question because she understands that a healthy, modern democracy needs more than just a parliament and courts to protect the rights of citizens; it needs also a vigorous civil society, a free press, independent trade unions and a vibrant not-for-profit charity sector which is free to do its good work and to speak up without fear or favour for those who often do not have a voice themselves to do so.
This freedom is under attack in Queensland. Campbell Newman has introduced clauses into Queensland government contracts with not-for-profits and with charities that prohibit them from speaking up about government policy—and even prohibit them from including links on their websites to other organisations that might be doing so. The clause is well known in the not-for-profit sector as a gag clause.
An especially bizarre feature of this gag clause in Queensland is that, not only are these organisations prohibited from talking about Queensland government policy; they are also prohibited from talking about Commonwealth government policy. I can tell the House that the Commonwealth government did not seek this protection from Campbell Newman. I don't need it. I'm pretty sure the Minister for Health doesn't need it. I'm absolutely sure the Minister for Disability Reform doesn't need it. And nor do we want it, because not only are gag clauses fundamentally antidemocratic, they are also just weak. It is a cowardly government that cannot brook criticism or dissent from Australia's not-for-profit organisations and its charities. That is why, when we were elected, we removed the gag clauses inserted under the Howard government into Commonwealth contracts, and that is why we have announced today that we will introduce legislation into this parliament to prohibit gag clauses from Commonwealth contracts now and into the future.
This is an announcement that has been warmly welcomed by the not-for-profit and charities sector. Tim Costello, the CEO of World Vision, and the head of the Community Council of Australia, released a media statement today, in which he said:
Civil society is at its best when the voice of the not-for-profit sector can be heard loud and clear. The removal of gag clauses is a critical part of the reform process, and one charities and not-for-profits will strongly welcome.
I table that media release, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also table the media release from the Council of Social Services, welcoming our announcement; and the media release from the Mental Health Council of Australia, welcoming our announcement—just as three examples.
This was a bad policy under the Howard government, and it is yet another step backward for the people of Queensland. The government does hope that our legislation ultimately will win the support of the opposition, and of other MPs in this place, to send a very clear message to Campbell Newman, and to other state governments who might be considering this, that gagging our not-for-profit organisations and our charities has no place in a modern democracy.
Just before I call the member, I inform the House we have in the gallery a group of elders from Aboriginal Medical Services Western Sydney called the Golden Oldies. Perhaps they should change their name to 'Distinguished Elders'! I think it might be more appropriate.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that the government is spending $20 million every day to fund the interest payments alone on the government's debt. How can Australians have any confidence that the government can fund its $120 billion budget black hole when it is already spending $7 billion a year just to fund the interest payments on the government debt alone?
I remind the member that there was an economic event called the global financial crisis.
Opposition members interjecting—
I know that that has caused an outbreak of confusion in the opposition ranks. They are now all looking at each other, confused—'What are people talking about', they are all talking to each other and saying; 'A global financial crisis? What was that? When was that?'—because we know the Leader of the Opposition slept through the legislation to deliver economic stimulus to keep our country out of recession and to support jobs. But there was the biggest economic downturn the world had seen since the Great Depression. That happened.
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—
Order! The member for Cowper! The member for Casey has asked his question.
The member might be the only person who claims economic literacy who has forgotten—
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—
Order! The member for Cowper is warned!
but rest of the world has not. And then when we look at what that has caused around the rest of the world: we have see economies in recession; we see economies with double-digit unemployment rates; we see lives being wasted, lives of hopelessness now being led because people cannot get work; we see governments that have had to slash government services because of the nature of their economic conditions.
In contrast, what have we seen here? Because of the timely and decisive action of the government, we kept our nation out of recession, we supported jobs—and that was the right thing to do for working Australians and for the people that they care for, to keep people in work, and we stand by it.
Of course, the global financial crisis, hitting as it did, the global economy and then into our economy, we were not immune—of course that had implications for government revenue, as the member well knows. And, as has been acknowledged by opposition spokespeople in the past, they too in those circumstances would have had seen the government's—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can the Prime Minister be relevant when she will not even mention the $50 billion in debts in the last two years?
The member for Casey will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once again, we have the absolute economic illiteracy of the opposition on display—forgotten about the global financial crisis, weren't prepared to support Australian jobs, were happy to see our nation go into recession, which would have ended up with a declining economy, with hopelessness for working Australians, as they were in economies and communities that had been devastated and they were unable to provide work.
We made a different set of choices: we chose to support working Australians. We now are going to bring the budget into surplus, because that is the right thing to do in these economic circumstances. We will make all of the hard decisions necessary to do that, and we will be transparent about them. What the opposition will do is cook the books—that is what they did in the 2010 election, and that is what they are looking to do now.
Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Blair has the call.
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness. What do the government's plans to improve our education system mean—
Mr Abbott interjecting—
Order! The member for Blair has the call.
for the competitiveness of the Australian economy? And what risks do irresponsible funding cuts to skills and education pose to our competitiveness?
The member for Blair will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business?
With the greatest of respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was on his feet, you clearly recognised that he was on his feet, then you turned to your right to see if a Labor member was standing and then recognised the Labor member. The Leader of the Opposition deserves more respect than that when he is seeking the call.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I was trying to ascertain if he was seeking a supplementary. I remembered they had used up their two supplementaries and, then, in the usual to and fro of question time, it was the government's question. I had given the government the call, and it is totally within the prerogative of the chair as to who gets the call. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Blair again has the call and he should ask his question again.
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness. What does the government's plan to improve our education system mean for the competitiveness of the Australian economy and what risks do irresponsible funding cuts pose to skills and training for our competitiveness?
What about the cuts to Defence?
The member for Herbert will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Herbert then left the chamber.
I thank my friend and colleague the member for Blair for his question, because I know how much he cares about the people of Blair and of Ipswich. He has been discussing with me the increase in unemployment associated with the savage cuts of the Queensland state government.
We know that investing in skills and education is the pre-eminent source of competitiveness in the 21st century. Yet across coalition states we are seeing savage cuts to investment in education and training. New South Wales is taking $1.7 billion out of schools and cutting 800 TAFE jobs and increasing TAFE fees.
I rise on a point of order. The standing orders are very clear that ministers should be asked questions within their portfolio. Question time is not a time for a general question to the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness to slag and bag coalition states. I ask you that, if question time is to mean anything, you bring the minister to order or sit him down.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
On the point of order, the minister is the minister for competitiveness. If the shadow minister for education does not understand that education and skills have something to do with us having a competitive economy then that is his problem.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
The Queensland government is cutting the number of TAFEs by half, the Victorian government is slashing TAFE funding by $300 million and of course just today this has been fully endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition when he said: 'I respect the job they are doing. I work closely with them as far as I can. But they are dealing with their problems at the state level and I will seek to deal with federal problems at our level.' You have the Leader of the Opposition endorsing the cuts and saying that he too would engage in savage cuts to government programs.
We know the size of the problem, because the shadow finance minister indicated that there is indeed a $70 billion funding crater. That was confirmed again today by the shadow Treasurer. The shadow finance minister further said to Business Spectator, in August: 'I have on my desk 49 policy documents, with covers'—that is nice —'and the costings.' So they have the costings and they are concealing them. We know that they are deliberately concealing the costings of where these savage cuts are coming from because he said at the same interview that they would not make the same mistake as they made with Fightback! and set out those policies before an election. Indeed, the device of an audit commission is the device of choice of the coalition. It is the device that Campbell Newman used to conceal the cuts to education, to training and to the workforce in Queensland. And we know that this opposition has said no to the charter of budget honesty, which was designed by former Treasurer Peter Costello. They will not go to the Parliamentary Budget Office. The shadow Treasurer obviously is going to hire a retired Mosman bookkeeper to put a little ruler over the costings and then say that it all adds up. But in truth they have in mind the same device—
The minister will get back to the issue—
and that is an audit commission. You, the Leader of the Opposition, should have the courage to say to the Australian people where you are going to make cuts. Be a man, front up and tell the Australian people how you are going to savagely cut education—
The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately:
That this House:
(1) notes the Prime Minister’s comment on 11 February 2011 that: 'Every time we announce something we properly account for it and properly fund it.';
(2) calls on the Government to explain where the money is coming from for its $120 billion of recently announced spending, including spending on disability services, additional funding for aged care, new funding for low-paid workers, increased costs of its border protection failures, funding of new defence projects, establishment of a new dental care scheme, and the provision of additional education funding;
(3) notes that Australia’s debt continues to approach $300 billion despite the Prime Minister claiming that the Budget is in surplus; and
(4) calls on the Treasurer to immediately rule out new increases in taxes for families and small business in order to plug their $120 billion Budget black hole.
Standing orders need to be suspended so that this House can have the economic debate that the Prime Minister herself called for at the start of question time—and she has now fled. Standing orders must be suspended because the nation's finances are descending into chaos and even the government's own backbenchers know it.
We have a Prime Minister who is spending like a drunken sailor, with one eye on the polls and the other eye on the member for Griffith—and doesn't she know it: doesn't she know that she has to keep an eye on the member for Griffith! This is why standing orders must be suspended, because yesterday, in the caucus, the Rudd forces made an organised hit on the Prime Minister and on the government's economic strategy. I am quoting from today's Financial Review:
Mr Swan faced questioning in the weekly caucus … from five MPs concerned about the government's plans.
In the Labor caucus room yesterday, outspoken Labor Left senator Doug Cameron, Tasmanian MP Geoff Lyons, NSW MP Janelle Saffin, NSW MP Ed Husic and Victorian MP Kelvin Thomson expressed concern about the government's spending priorities.
That is why standing orders must be suspended. What do all those members of parliament have in common? Every single one of them is a backer of the former Prime Minister. And we know it was an organised hit. We had the front page of the Financial Review; we had an almost identical leak from caucus in the Australian:
At least five Labor backbenchers yesterday tackled the Treasurer about the government's spending priorities and its ability to pay for big-ticket promises while protecting a budget surplus—
of just $1.5 billion this financial year. That is why standing orders must be suspended. But the organised nature of this hit by the former Prime Minister on the current Prime Minister is exposed by what else was said in both the Financial Review and the Australian. Again, I am quoting from the Financial Review of this morning:
Some senior Labor figures yesterday privately accused Ms Gillard of making a deal to help shore up union support for her leadership—
'union support for her leadership'. And there, in the Australian:
Labor MPs told The Australian last night they believed Ms Gillard's undertakings to union leaders running campaigns for government wage top-ups was all about "shoring up union support for her leadership".
So standing orders must be suspended because this is a government in fiscal chaos and this is what the parliament should be debating as a priority right now.
I have to say, in fairness to the Prime Minister, that her opponent's supporters are just as incoherent and just as economically illiterate as her own. We had Senator Cameron saying in the caucus yesterday that we needed more taxes. And then we had the member for Chifley saying in the party room yesterday that we needed to boost spending. And then we had the member for Bass saying that we had to have a special Medicare levy—more taxes. And then we had the member for Page saying that we needed more foreign aid—more taxes! And then we had the member for Wills saying in the caucus yesterday that we needed more spending. So, whether they are supporters of the Prime Minister or whether they are supporters of the former Prime Minister, it is the same Labor economic illiteracy.
We had the Prime Minister say today that her economic policy was based on Labor values. Well, we know what Labor values are when it comes to the economy: debt and deficit, tax and waste. And, at all times—and this is why standing orders must be suspended—they are making our economy less and less and less competitive.
What did the Treasurer do yesterday? Well, the Treasurer is simply making it up as he goes. We all know that this Treasurer wants to be known as 'surplus Swan', but we know what he is: he is always 'wasteful Wayne'. That is what he always is. And we had a classic example of this Treasurer's real spending priorities exposed in the parliament last week when we had wasteful Wayne's weaving workshop—like something out of the Life of Brian: wasteful Wayne's weaving workshop!—because this is a government that will spend whatever it takes to buy its way back into office.
Let us go through the list: the National Disability Insurance Scheme—a very good cause, but it will only be delivered by a political party which is fiscally prudent and fiscally responsible—is $10.5 billion a year; the Gonski changes, $6.5 billion a year; the assistance to childcare workers, $1.3 billion a year; the new submarines, $35 billion; the Nauru and Manus Island centres, $2.1 billion; the additional humanitarian intake, $1.3 billion a year; and then there is the dental scheme—and this is why standing orders must be suspended—some $4 billion; all absolutely, utterly and totally unfunded.
We had the Prime Minister tell us, oh so solemnly—the Prime Minister who will not even stay in this parliament to debate the economy, having demanded an economic debate earlier in question time today—'Every time we announce something we properly account for it and properly fund it.' Well, do you know what this is going to rank with? It is going to rank with: 'There will be no carbon tax—
Opposition members: under the government I lead.'
Another deception from a Prime Minister who will say and do anything to enter office and to stay in office. That is the tragedy of this country: having fibbed into office, this is a Prime Minister that will now squander this nation's fiscal inheritance to stay in office. We had the Prime Minister talking today about savings that this government has made.
We know what this government means when it talks about savings, don't we?
Opposition members: A tax!
It means a tax. That is what it means. The government talked about $100 billion of savings. At least $50 billion of that was new taxes. It talked about $33 billion of savings in this budget; half of it—$17 billion—was new taxes. The time for big-spending, big-taxing, big-fibbing government has gone. We will give the Australian people the decent government they deserve. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. Standing orders must be suspended in order to get answers out of this government. I found it absolutely extraordinary: very simple questions were asked in question time; the government refused to answer them. When the Treasurer was asked whether he was going to raid the Future Fund to pay for the $120 billion of unfunded promises, he typically obfuscated. He did not obfuscate yesterday when the member for Bass asked him in the caucus whether he was going to double the Medicare levy—he said 'no'. He did not obfuscate when we asked him in this place whether he was going to support the reintroduction of death duties, which was identified by the Henry report. He said—eventually—'no'.
When we asked him today whether he was going to break open the Future Fund—the last remaining resort of funding for Australia's future—the Treasurer turned around and did not answer the question. He did not answer the question because the government is now desperate. Standard & Poor's has identified in a media report that the deficit this year is estimated to be over $20 billion. The government claims it is going to have a surplus. The Treasurer said he would have a surplus, because that helps to take some of the upward pressure off interest rates. That is why he said it was important to have a surplus.
It is not just falling revenues that make it urgent that this matter to be dealt with; it is the government's unfunded spending. To shore up the Prime Minister's leadership the government has committed to over $120 billion of new spending initiatives. We know about the deal that it is trying to reach with the missos union. We know equally that it is probably the case that the Prime Minister has been scared off giving a $1½ billion a year subsidy to private sector workers because the matter leaked from the Labor caucus yesterday. We also know that the government is going to avoid making that commitment until after MYEFO, which is expected to come out in the next few weeks. We know all of that. Why? Because we know that the carbon tax was not in the budget in 2011 and then came out only a few weeks later with a multibillion dollar deficit in the carbon tax package. We know the trickery that this government is up to. It needs to be held to account. We are trying to hold it to account.
This is an incompetent government. It is typically Labor: it is big spending, big promises, no delivery and taxpayers paying. When in Queensland and New South Wales you get a coalition government following the reckless indifference of terrible Labor governments that left a legacy of debt and deficit, this mob then shoots the ambulance driver trying to rescue the patient. That is what those opposite do. They are hypocrites. They shed crocodile tears about public servant job losses, yet the Treasurer is sacking 3,000 people this year. What a hypocrite.
We need to suspend standing orders because we and the Australian people want answers. We want answers to the questions on where the money is coming from. We want the truth about the government's plan on taxes. We know the promise that there would be 'no carbon tax under the government I lead'. How can you believe them after an election? You cannot trust Labor before an election and you sure as hell cannot trust them after an election. This is typical Labor: debt and deficit. They are recklessly indifferent to the truth. They are not being honest with the Australian people. It is reliant upon us to hold this mob to account on behalf of Australian families, on behalf of Australian small-business people, on behalf of the people who have to pay the bills for Labor's reckless spending. We want answers. We want them now. The Australian people want the truth about the $120 billion black hole.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
If the member for Sturt does not allow me to put the question he might not get a suspension. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
This is a leader who has hit a brick wall. The pugilist is out there swinging away; but they are air swings. He has not landed anything. He is like the pugilist who goes out there all macho man: swinging away but not landing a punch. Is that all you have got? After 1 July we know that that is all he has got. He comes in here and is like a robocall: press button 1, scare campaign on the carbon price and the economy; press button 2, scare campaign on asylum seekers. That is all they have got. They have no alternative agenda whatsoever. They have just the low road of fear; they do not worry about any of the facts when they go down that road.
This is a Leader of the Opposition who ran from the parliament but also runs from himself. This is a Leader of the Opposition who goes day after day without giving a press conference. He talks about accountability. This morning he gave a press conference at 6.15 am in Fyshwick.
He hoped no-one would turn up!
It was at 6.15 am. People turned up, so I suspect that tomorrow it will be at 5:30 am in Queanbeyan. And then of course when he gets a question that has a simple answer like we saw last Friday from Karen Middleton, a yes or no question, he runs from it—he runs from his own press conferences. Not as fast as a gazelle, but run nonetheless he does. But when he has to take some responsibility and show leadership as the Leader of the Opposition, we see that the leadership comes from the other side but not from this Leader of the Opposition.
We saw Malcolm Turnbull show leadership earlier today, after Cory Bernardi engaged in such a disgraceful, reprehensible attack last night. Cory Bernardi resigned; he did not apologise. The Leader of the Opposition could not bring himself to condemn the latest comments made by Senator Bernardi, who is shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. He just does not get it about respect for other people. The problems with the comments were not that they were ill-disciplined; the problem is that they were bigoted and they were disrespectful. The Leader of the Opposition should have shown leadership today.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the Leader of the House, but the remark he made about the Leader of the Opposition was entirely personally offensive. It was a bridge too far and he should withdraw it.
The Leader of the House will withdraw.
Withdraw what?
Just for the convenience of the House.
The Leader of the Opposition had 10 minutes. We stood there and listened to him and—
Opposition members: Withdraw!
Order! The Leader of the House has the call, if he could withdraw.
I do not know what it is that should be withdrawn, Deputy Speaker.
I will be brutally honest: I have no idea either because I could not hear over the members—
I said nothing offensive. I cannot withdraw something when I do not know what it is.
The Leader of the House has the call and will be heard in silence. I will review the matter later.
The fact of the matter is this. They want a debate on the economy. This economy is 11 per cent larger than when we came to office—impressive growth, a low unemployment rate of 5.1 per cent—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps we should give the Leader of the House the benefit of the doubt, but he said that the Leader of the Opposition did not respect people, and his actions today indicate that he has deep respect for people. It was disrespectful and we are asked to withdraw things that—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I had asked the Leader of the House to withdraw but, as neither of us had heard it, I said he would be heard now in silence and I will review the matter later.
Deputy Speaker, if it helps, I withdraw, but I do find it absolutely extraordinary that this bloke had 10 minutes to attack—
Madam Deputy Speaker—
The member for Mackellar will resume her seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
Deputy Speaker, they say he did not attack the Prime Minister!
The Leader of the House has the call. He will refer to members by their title.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Leader of the House will be heard in silence, as the two previous speakers were.
The Leader of the Opposition is not man enough to discipline his own side. It is as simple as that. In the meantime, we have engaged in an economic performance that is the envy of the world. You do not have to believe me; believe him because the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:
… Australia has serious bragging rights. Compared to most developed countries, our economic circumstances are enviable.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Very shortly the member for Sturt might not be here to vote.
That is what he had to say in London. Yet here he comes and talks down the economy, when all the economic fundamentals show that this government has a record we can be proud of. Compared to the former government, taxes, interest rates, unemployment and inflation are today all lower—and they raise the issue of the assessments overseas—along with a AAA credit rating from all three of the world's leading ratings agencies for the first time ever. It is no wonder I have lost a bet in our tactics room because this morning what I said around the room in the Prime Minister's office was that today the Leader of the Opposition will not come back and move a suspension because they are onto him and his destructive negativity. Today they will try to put forward a policy argument, which is why we should not suspend standing orders. They are going to suspend standing orders, when their MPI has been put in by the shadow Treasurer about the same issue. So they are knocking off the MPI debate, moving it forward, in order to have the same debate twice. This morning the Treasurer was right. The Treasurer said to me, 'No, he can't help himself; he'll go down the destructive, negative road.' What we have seen today is just that.
Big brave Wayne sitting there in the chair.
The member for Wannon is warned!
In spite of the advice they have got:
Abbott told, 'We want policy, not negativity'—
That is what they have said in the party room:
We need to be balancing the negative stuff more and looking at greater fleshing out of policy,' a member of the opposition said.
Who said?
The member for Sturt will leave the chamber under 94(a). I gave him plenty of warning.
The member for Sturt then left the chamber.
I suspect it might have been one of the backbenchers up there who said:
There's a lot of passengers in quite a lot of senior positions, said one MP backing a reshuffle.
And indeed there are. Not only does this Leader of the Opposition not have a plan for Australia's future; he has not even had a plan for a three-year term in opposition. Every day he has engaged in a strategy which is based upon the election being called tomorrow. That is why he has not put forward constructive suggestions. That is why 407 pieces of legislation have been carried in this parliament. Not only have the opposition failed to knock one off but they have failed even to get an amendment up without the government's support. Here in this parliament, one in which the crossbenchers have a particularly critical role to play, the opposition have not even been able to achieve that.
The words of Robert Menzies were right. He said:
… on far too many questions we have found our role to be simply that of the man who says ‘No’ … There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction. There is no useful place for a policy of negation.
That is what we are seeing and that is why this Leader of the Opposition is the most unpopular Leader of the Opposition in Australia's history. (Time expired)
The question is that the Leader of the Opposition's motion be agreed to.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
I do indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, on numerous occasions in question time today.
Please proceed.
Most egregiously, in the debate just concluded the Leader of the House claimed that I had not condemned the speech given by Senator Bernardi last night in the Senate. This is simply false. Let me quote from the release I put out earlier today—and I quote slowly and deliberately, and I hope that the Leader of the House is listening:
… I will not tolerate comments that are offensive to people in same-sex relationships.
I correct the record and I think if the Leader of the House had any decency he would accept that he got it dead wrong and offer an apology.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the member for Wills claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, I do, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Please proceed.
In question time the member for North Sydney claimed that I have asked the Treasurer yesterday, 'Where's the money coming from?' I did no such thing. I strongly support the government's financial strategy and reject the approach of Campbell Newman, Ted Baillieu and Barry O'Farrell.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the member for Solomon claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Please proceed.
On page 22 of today's NT News they ask:
WHAT were the important issues raised by our Federal MP NatashaGriggs in Canberra this week? Indigenous disadvantage, the carbon tax, asylum seekers? No—reality TV and the NRL. Griggs used her talk time in Parliament to gloat about Territorians Shiane Hawke, Ben Barba and Jessica Mauboy until she was cut off by the Speaker and told her time had expired.
It is perfectly normal to talk about constituents in three-minute constituency statements. This week I have also talked about and raised matters relating to the budget, border protection, not-for-profit organisations—
Order! The member for Solomon will resume her seat.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit Report No. 3 of 2012-13, entitled Performance Audit: the design and conduct of the first application round for the Regional Development Australia Fund, Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Art and Sport.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Byrne to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in place of Mr LDT Ferguson.
by leave—I move:
That Mr L. D. T. Ferguson be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and that, in his place, Mr Byrne be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Migration Act 1958—Section 91Y—Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days—Report for the period 1 March to 30 June 2012.
National Health Act 1953—Independent review of the impact of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) cost recovery, November 2011.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to Mr Haase on the ground of parliamentary business overseas.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The urgent need for the Government to bring its spending under control.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
How interesting it was that, of the five amigos, the fabulous five who were named yesterday in an AFR article about challenging the Treasurer on spending priorities, only one today decided to stand up and say the claims were untrue.
Only one!
Only one. What about the other four? I am sure that, over in the Senate, Senator Cameron as the chief flamethrower for the member for Griffith is right now saying, 'It's outrageous—I didn't challenge on spending priorities; I actually challenged on the basis that I want more taxes'! That is what Labor is about: more taxes. The member for Bass gave it his best shot. He said, 'Let's double the Medicare levy.' The Treasurer said, 'No, we're not going to do that.' That is a more effusive, more direct and more comprehensive answer to the member for Bass in the Labor Party caucus than anything this Treasurer has ever given to the Australian people in this place. But it gets better. According to the article yesterday:
One Labor MP, who asked not to be named, told The Australian Financial Review that some MPs were concerned about Labor's recent raft of funding commitments.
''They want to talk about these all encompassing programs, but they don't want to talk about how they are going to fund it,'' the MP said.
"It’s probably a sign of maturity in caucus—
it has only been around for 113 years, caucus, but finally there is a sign of maturity in caucus, according to this Labor MP!—
that people are not just prepared to go along with this wishful thinking.''
I repeat: 'this wishful thinking'. It is like The Wishing Well, one of the books I read to my kids, a story about making wishes, or The Magic Pudding, The Magic Faraway Tree, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and all those stories. They are all great stories but they are all fantasy—all fantasy, like the economic credibility of the Labor Party. It is all fantasy. They know how to spend money and, boy, are they good at it.
We have had pink batts that have burnt down houses. We have had $900 cheques go to dead people to stimulate the economy, which is a big ask of a dead person! We have also had the government spend outrageous sums of money on massively overpriced school halls. But, if you thought for a single moment that Labor might have learnt its lesson on waste, you are wrong; we have found a couple more examples. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities—actually, I think it is a bit of a waste to have a title with five different roles in it—
What's the acronym?
DSEWPaC! The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has a $462,000 contract to deck out just two offices with indoor plants. That is just fantastic! It's a cracker. Just listen to this one: Labor has handed out $72,000 to the Auburn Community Development Network—in the member for Reid's marginal electorate—to host an 'enviro tea salon'. Thanks to the funding—this is the worst!—participants can now take part in a weaving workshop using native lomandra grass. I wonder what they are doing with that lomandra grass! Listen to this: participants 'will be encouraged to share their energy efficiency tips in exchange for a free seedling, re-potted into a recycled coffee cup sourced from local businesses'. That is taxpayers' money, $72,000 worth. Every taxpayer out there has been wondering where their taxes go under Labor.
And, just in case the wrong impression is given, Labor currently spends $150 million a year on an army of spin doctors. There are 1,600 people employed in the Public Service in media, communications, marketing and public affairs. The Australian Taxation Office has 271 spin doctors—I would say that is 271 who have failed at their jobs—while Defence has 175 and Human Services 124. This is Labor.
Mr Bradbury interjecting—
You might say, 'Come on, Joe, you're being a little tough here. You're being a little tough when you're down to talking about $72,000 or even $467,000.' But do you know what the cracker is? The federal government paid $1 billion, no strings attached, to electricity generators before 31 June this year for nothing—for nothing. They were going to close down some of those power stations, or they were going to keep them open; they cannot quite tell. But it was $1 billion. Remember the flood levy? The flood levy upset so many Australians who had given so generously privately to try and help Queenslanders in particular but also Victorians affected by floods. The government said, 'No, we've got to be responsible with our budget. We've got to have a limit on the deficit. The deficit will be $22 billion, therefore we're going to have a $1.7 billion flood levy.' That had a real impact on consumer confidence. It had a real impact on the discretionary spend of consumers. You know what happened? The government did not care about the budget, because what they promised was a $22 billion deficit and it has now turned out to be a $44 billion deficit.
So how would you have funded it?
Now that I am being interjected on by the member for Lindsay, it takes me to the waste on boats. You are familiar with boats, aren't you, coming from Western Sydney? Before the last election the member for Lindsay went all the way up into Northern Australia, jumped on one of our naval vessels and, to the best of my memory, said, 'We are going to stop the boats.' Commander Bradbury said that—a long way from Penrith and Western Sydney. The only boat the Labor Party has stopped is a legal boat that tried to go fishing in Australian waters after three approvals from the Labor Party. That is the only boat you have stopped, sunshine.
His electorate's landlocked.
No, he has got the Nepean River. He will have his own little navy out of this, I am sure!
But it does get very serious. Why? Because, in order to shore up the Prime Minister's leadership, the Labor Party have gone on a spending spree of unprecedented scale. They have promised to deliver a National Disability Insurance Scheme, for which they have promised a huge amount of money, involving $10½ billion a year once it is fully operational, but they have not found the money for it. There could be no crueller hoax on some of the most vulnerable people in the community than to raise expectations and not deliver. Yet that is what the Labor Party have done. They have allocated $1 billion over the next four years for a program that, into the future, is going to cost $10½ billion to run. There is no money for it. They are trying to create the impression there is money for it.
They said they are going to increase aged-care funding by $3.7 billion over the next five years, but there is no money for it. They said: 'Don't worry. Low-paid workers are going to get an extra $1 billion.' In fact, we have now found out it is an extra $3 billion for low-paid workers, which the Labor Party said was a pay rise for social and community sector workers. So it was originally $1 billion and now it is $3 billion. They are going to subsidise private sector wages, and of course that is money that is not in the budget.
Offshore processing—gee, that's going well! It will be $2.1 billion at least for reopening Nauru and Manus Island. On the increase in the refugee intake, the government said they are increasing it to 20,000. They cannot stop the boats. We have had more than 25,000 people come here on boats under the government in recent times, yet they are increasing the refugee intake to 20,000, which is going to cost $1.4 billion.
You keep reminding me of defence and border protection. On defence, the government has committed to 12 new submarines—not six. They have one that urgently needs work sitting on a dry dock in South Australia. They are not prepared to spend the money on that, but do not worry, South Australia.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I do not think the member for North Sydney needs that assistance.
This government claims it is going to build 12 new submarines at $36 billion, and there is $16 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter, which it delays; it says the money is somewhere in the forward estimates. Well, it is not there. Then we have the dental care program—the one going through the parliament now—with $4 billion.
But the mother of them all, if you like, is the Gonski review, with $6½ billion, but probably really more—$8 billion a year. The Prime Minister said: 'Don't worry. Every school in the country will be better off.' We would love to promise that. We would love to say that every school in Australia is going to get way more money than the six per cent annual increase already budgeted for. We would love to say that. You know what? They will not say where it is coming from. But we know where it is coming from, because there is someone running around out there saying: 'Hang on. We should break into the government Future Fund, the money that was set up and put away by the coalition for the future challenges—the superannuation needs into the future—so that our children and grandchildren will not have a debt burden.' We put that money away. We did not spend it. We put it away, and what do Labor want to do? They want to break into that. You know what that is the equivalent of? That is the equivalent of saying to a parent: 'It's okay. Don't worry about your retirement. Don't worry about funding yourself and your family into retirement. You can break into your superannuation now in order to fund your children's education.' You cannot apply one rule to the government and not apply the same rule to everyday Australians. You cannot break into people's savings for one purpose and not another.
We asked the Treasurer explicitly in question time today: 'What is the answer? Yes or no? Are you going to break into this Future Fund, which Australians have put aside to deal with the challenges into the future and to protect our children?' You know what? He would not answer the question. He was prepared to answer the member for Bass in the caucus yesterday. He was prepared to answer a question on death duties in this place, but he was not prepared to answer the question about breaking into the Future Fund.
You know what comes out of all of this? The government's total indifference to the welfare of Australian families. How can you say to a family on a household income of $68,000 a year, 'Guys, you're going to have taxes that increase your cost of living by at least $1,000 or $2,000 a year'? How do you say that to them in this environment, when so many people are uncertain and nervous about the future? How do you say to those people, 'We're going to make it much harder for people into the future under Labor, but don't worry; it's all accounted for'? It is not accounted for. That is the Labor way. They said before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' The Prime Minister looked the Australian people in the eye and pledged there would be no carbon tax, and the Treasurer looked the Australian people in the eye and said it was a hysterical allegation that there would be a carbon tax. So too do they look the Australian people in the eye today and say, 'Don't worry; it will be all right.'
It will not be all right under Labor, because they are A-grade hypocrites. They are indifferent to the welfare of Australian families. They are indifferent to the welfare of Australian businesses. They just do not understand that taxpayers' money belongs to taxpayers. It is not theirs to splash around for the re-election of the leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard. It is not their opportunity to try and hold government based on taxpayers' money. It is their solemn responsibility to protect taxpayers, to give Australians hope, to allow Australians to gain the reward from their effort and their hard work and to ensure that as a nation we have the opportunity to do better. The handbrake of Labor must come off. It is time for them for once to be honest with the Australian people. (Time expired)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this matter of public importance brought forward by the member for North Sydney. It is ironic that it is the member for North Sydney that brings forward this MPI, given the fact that he is the one that has confirmed that there is a $70 billion black hole in the opposition's costings. He has done it twice now on breakfast television. We all know about that occasion when he did it, when the minister for the environment was also side by side with him on breakfast television, and he confirmed that the $70 billion figure was correct. But after all of the hot air that we have heard from him since, we see today he went back on breakfast television. It took him a little while, but eventually he conceded once more that he does have a $70 billion black hole.
To give this some context, this $70 billion black hole comes on the back of that $11 billion black hole that they had in their election costings.
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—
The member opposite—always one to walk into it—has come forward making an interjection about some mysterious $120 billion—no fact, absolutely no basis, no substance, another one of these Liberal scare campaigns. In fact, he is not even a Liberal. He is part of the tail that has been wagging the dog of economic policy for the Liberals—he is a National member. He is out there making these claims about $120 billion. Well, it is rubbish. There is no $120 billion black hole, and if they believe there is, provide some evidence. Tell us where this $120 billion black hole is. But when it comes to the $70 billion black hole, don't believe me. Go and talk to the shadow Treasurer. He is on the record, not once, but twice, going on breakfast television and confirming a $70 billion black hole.
But what was interesting about the comments that he made today on ABC 24 was that not only did he confirmed the $70 billion black hole, but he went on to say, 'Up to,' and when he did that, he goes on, 'what we are saying was, we will find the savings, and we have found the savings.' So he is not just saying that they have a $70 billion black hole, and not just acknowledging that they are going to need to find $70 billion worth of savings to plug the loophole. Mind you, they have not revealed to the Australian people any of these savings, except, of course, for the 12,000 public servants that they want to sack. We heard the member for North Sydney once more, on his feet just a few minutes ago, when he started talking about all these people in the public service. What he did not tell us was how many of them he intends to sack. But he has done that on a previous occasion—12,000 is the current figure. Twelve thousand. It is starting to sound familiar, isn't it? It is starting to sound just a little bit like Queensland. In fact, when we have a look at what is emerging, it is a pattern—a pattern of deceit, a pattern of Liberal and National deceit. I think it can best be described as the five-point plan coming straight out of the Liberal playbook. It always starts with step 1: talk down the economy. It does not matter how good the economic figures that are released are, the member for North Sydney has always got some spin that turns it into doom and gloom. You would think that we were a Third World country, if you listen to Premier Newman or some of those in New South Wales. They are out there saying, 'The Australian economy is up there in the same league as the Greek or Spanish economies.' Does anyone seriously believe that?
Let us have a look at the facts. We have an economy where our budget is returning to surplus. We have growth that has been achieved since the GFC of 11 per cent—our economy today is 11 per cent larger than it was before the GFC. Show me a major advanced economy, anywhere in the world, that comes within a hair of that 11 per cent growth—head and shoulders above all of our competitors, but they talk the economy down.
Unemployment is just over five per cent. We have interest rates at record lows. Remember they told us all, at a previous election, 'Interest rates will always be lower under the Liberals.' Then we had 10 consecutive increases in interest rates. To put some facts into the debate, interest rates are lower today under the Labor government than they were when the Liberals left office. In fact, a family on an average mortgage of about $300,000 is paying $4,000 a year less in their repayments. Four thousand dollars a year less—these are the facts.
We talk about strong growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, not to mention the record pipeline of investment coming into this country—half a trillion dollars worth of investment scheduled to come into this country in the resources sector alone. In addition to that, we know that our net debt—and they talk about debt and deficit—is peaking at less than 10 per cent of gross domestic product—less than 10 per cent of the size of our economy. When you compare that with our competitor economies, it is about a 10th of the average of other advanced economies. Anyone travelling to Australia says, 'What is the secret?' This is one of the miracle economies in terms of the GFC and coming out of the back of the GFC. The way in which the Australian economy is performing, it is outperforming all of its peers.
Those opposite come in here every day and talk down the economy. If they were in power, all of the indicators that they used to claim were the indicators of success. They used to say, 'We're a wonderful government, because interest rates are low.' Well, interest rates are low today. They used to say, 'We're a wonderful government, because unemployment is low.' Unemployment is low today. They used to say, 'We're a wonderful government because we've been growing.' The economy is growing today. On all of the measures that they previously stood up in this place and claimed were the benchmarks of economic success when they were on this side of the chamber, this government has achieved success. Our national economy gets a tick on all of these counts, yet day after day they come into this place and go out there into the community and talk down the economy.
They talk down the economy because that is step 1 of the five-point plan of the Liberal play book. Step 2, after they have spent all their time talking down the economy, is they make sure that they keep their policies in the top drawer. We heard from the member for North Sydney earlier today that they have costed all of these savings—$70 billion worth of savings. Have a look at New South Wales. The New South Wales Liberals have ripped $1.7 billion out of education. Look how much damage that has done. The federal party would have to make $70 billion worth of cuts. If you believe the shadow Treasurer or the member for Goldstein, who has previously said, 'We've done all the hard policy work, we've got the costings and we've got the savings,' they are in the top drawer.
They keep it in the top drawer. I am not sure if it is in the top drawer of the shadow Treasurer or the shadow minister for finance, but there is this folder. This folder has all of these nasty cuts that they want to make to health and education, like the cuts we have seen in Queensland and the cuts we have seen in New South Wales. I do not remember the people of New South Wales being let in on the secret before the New South Wales election. The Queensland people were not let in on the secret about all these cuts before the Queensland election. In the top drawer is a folder, and there is a label on this folder. The label says 'Commission of audit: recommendations', because step 3 of the five-point plan is that they hold a commission of audit.
So they would come in after talking the economy down, telling everyone that this is the worst economy in the world, and say, 'We have to take drastic action, and those policies that we costed that were sitting in the top drawer are mysteriously going to be the recommendations of the secret audit.' In Queensland they got Peter Costello to conduct the audit. I suspect that will not be happening. He is not the flavour of the month. In fact, given the way the coalition have turned their backs on rational economic policy, he has to pick up the pen and write opinion pieces day after day to point out what a tragedy it is that the once great Liberal Party, as he says, has now been taken over by that wagging dog of National Party agrarian populism. That is the shame about the modern Liberal Party.
The member for Higgins smiles. She smiles because she knows what a debacle it is that their economic policy is now being controlled by people who are xenophobic when it comes to foreign investment. They want to smash and break up Coles and Woolies.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 90 does not allow any improper imputation upon members of the opposition. Calling our view on foreign investment xenophobic crosses that line.
The member for Fadden will resume his seat. If I were to apply his rules, we would not actually have any debates in this place. Go ahead, Assistant Treasurer.
They are not my words but Peter Costello's words. Go and have a look at his opinion piece. Step 1: talk the economy down. Step 2: cost those nasty savings measures but keep them in the top drawer. Step 3: create a commission of audit. If you thought Peter Costello did a good job, I tell you that with a $70 billion black hole the only man for this job is Freddy Krueger. He is about the only one who could slash and slice and dice the sorts of savings that we would experience if the Liberals were to come to power.
So that is the third thing to do. They create a mickey mouse commission of audit, like they did when they were last in government. What they do not tell you is that when they were last in government they came in and said: 'What a disaster. The economy is in terrible shape. We need to make some savings.' So what did they do? They took an axe to health and education. The interesting thing was they had something like a commission of audit, but most of the things that they actually took up were not even the recommendations that the commission of audit outlined. They have already decided what they are going to cut. It is sitting in the top drawer.
The model, the template, is there for people to see in New South Wales and Queensland. It will take an axe to the Public Service. They have at least been a little bit honest about that in mentioning it will be 11,000 or 12,000 people. But they will take an axe to health. They will take an axe to education. That is their way. That is the Liberal way. We invest. We build a stronger economy for the future so that each individual has the capacity to make an active contribution to our economy. They believe that education is only for the privileged. They believe that if you cannot afford to pay for an education you do not deserve one. That is what they think. That is what they have always thought. Unfortunately, that is the future for this country if they get elected.
I have gone through the first few steps, but step 4, which I have already covered, is what they do when they get in, and that is to cut health and cut education. We saw what they did when they came to power in 1996. We have seen what Newman has done in Queensland. We have seen what O'Farrell has done in New South Wales. We have seen what Baillieu has done in Victoria. It is more of that that the Australian people can look forward to. But step 5 is the one. All of the first four steps were pretty predictable, but step 5 is the doozy. This is the one that you have all been waiting for.
There is a bit of an alignment of the stars happening here. They have their $70 billion black hole. How are they going to fill it? They are going to slash services—we know that. But, to give them credit, there have been one or two creative suggestions on their side. It is no more than a thought bubble, but if you pierce the thought bubble you can see there might actually be a kernel of coalition policy. It is a shame the member for Goldstein is not in the chamber at the moment. He came up with this cunning plan that the way he would save money is he would outsource health and education to the states. That is a good idea—they have been doing such a good job! I feel much safer knowing that Barry O'Farrell and Campbell Newman are going to look after health and education policy!
So we are going to outsource health and education completely to the state Liberal governments. Talk about opening the barn door and letting the fox into the henhouse. That is the future under a Liberal government. That is what we will experience under a Liberal government. But the thing about what the member for Goldstein has had to say is that there is a little bit more method to his madness. He is not just talking about outsourcing services to the states—because he knows that, if you outsource services to the states, they are going to want something out of it. Barry O'Farrell told us on the weekend what they want. They want to jack up the GST. The stars are beginning to come into alignment as more and more Liberal governments start to sprout up around the place all calling for an increase in the GST. We can see where it is going. They always wanted to put the GST on everything. They even took it to an election. Deep down in their heart of hearts they want to put the GST on everything—food, education and health. And now they want to get together with their Liberal mates and come back and try and finish the job. Well, we are going to stand up against that. (Time expired)
I am pleased to be able to speak on the very important issue of the failure of the government to bring its spending under control. The member for North Sydney chronicled the waste of this government. He mentioned pink batts, Building the Education Revolution and sending cheques to dead people and pets. But the biggest waste of all is not a budget item. The biggest waste of all has to be the National Broadband Network—and it is not even on the budget, so Australian taxpayers will be unaware of the financial carnage that this government is wreaking in Australia. The National Broadband Network has a cone of silence around it. You cannot inquire into the actual position of the NBN; it is shrouded in secrecy. It started as a $4.7 billion fibre-to-the-node network across the country. But it has morphed. It has had the mother of all cost overruns. And now many industry commentators say they do not think it will be finished for $50 billion—a tenfold increase in cost.
We have had no cost-benefit analysis. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, worked out the details on the back of a beer coaster on a VIP jet with then Prime Minister Rudd flying from Sydney to Perth. The $4.7 billion project morphed into something much more expensive. The member for North Sydney chronicled a number of fairytales earlier. We had the Wizard of Oz and the Magic Faraway Tree. But there is a bigger fairytale, and that is the NBN Co. corporate plan. The NBN Co. corporate plan is one of Australia's great fairytales. But it does tell us a few things. It claims that the actual cost, the capex, to build the network will be $37.5 billion but it will cost around $44.1 billion to complete the total project.
When you look at their figures, NBN Co.'s capital expense will be $1.4 billion more than originally planned, operating expenses will be $3.2 billion more than originally planned and, at the same time, revenue will be $600 million less than originally planned. That is a $5.2 billion adverse budget outcome in only two years. If you can achieve that in around two years, what hope does the Australian taxpayer have for any protection from the waste of this organisation over the life of the project, which is going to go well beyond a decade? The reality is that the government have no idea how much this project is going to cost. At every turn, they conceal the true position of the National Broadband Network.
The corporate plan for the NBN Co. has changed so much over the last couple of years that any forecasts made within it should be seen as nothing more than politically motivated guesses. We can have very little faith in NBN Co., because they miss every target. They are the gold medallists in missing targets. They missed every target in the 2010-12 corporate plan. The original corporate plan said the indirect costs were supposed to be $800 million by 2013. That has been revised up to $1.5 billion. This spending was on advertising, staff, vehicles, fit-outs, beer fridges—all the essential things. But building activity, spending on the actual network, was $1.7 billion less than actually planned. So NBN Co. was busily fitting out its offices, buying a fleet of vehicles and all that sort of stuff but the rollout of the network was actually proceeding at a snail's pace.
By 2013 the NBN fibre rollout was supposed to have passed 1.26 million premises; the new corporate plan says only 341,000. By 2013 the NBN fibre was supposed to be connected to over half a million premises; the new corporate plan revised that figure down by a princely 89 per cent to just 54,000. Total customer numbers, including wireless and satellite, have been revised down by 84 per cent from 562,000 to just 92,000.
But there is some good news. In the recent past, we finally got to the point where NBN Co. have more customers than staff. That is certainly a substantial improvement. Finally they have got to the point where they have got more customers than staff. NBN Co. is purely a financial disaster. If you believe the corporate plan, NBN Co. will have spent around $6 billion by 2013 for a grand total of 92,000 customers hooked up to its network—by any measure a colossal failure.
Despite the government rhetoric, the taxpayer is really paying for this. It is an absolute furphy to try and claim that this is somehow a project that can be kept off budget; it is a cost that is going to be met by the taxpayer. This project has little chance of being commercially viable. They did not even include in their figurings the cost of interest. My colleague the member for Wentworth quite rightly pointed out that a cost of around $10 billion in interest has not been included in the project cost. No developer would exclude interest charges on the cost of a development. But NBN Co. do, and they do it because they are trying to create an illusion that this project is somehow viable. I think Australian taxpayers deserve to know the true cost of the NBN. They deserve to know what it is costing them. They deserve to have the shroud of secrecy raised so that there can be actual transparency. Just as the government cannot get its spending under control, NBN cannot get its spending under control. In the current financial year NBN Co. will spend $1.1 billion on operating expenses, $3.2 billion on capital expenses and will only connect 54,000 customers.
The issue of how NBN Co. will run the satellites is of great concern. They will spend in the order of $2 billion on the satellite program. The program to have high-speed services delivered via satellite will be welcomed by regional Australia. But the reality is that there is no need for the government to own satellites, operate satellites and own the ground stations. When you talk to people in the satellite industry they are aghast at the fact that the government would go into the satellite business when they could have set a performance specification and had the private sector deliver the product, with utmost reliability, at a fraction of the cost. The government obviously have not learned from the Aussat debacle, where they lost $700 million in the early nineties. Nowhere in the world is a government getting into providing communication services via satellite.
We have the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network. It is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the parliament, supposed to be a watchdog that looks over the project. When we have Mike Quigley, the head of NBN Co., appear before the NBN joint committee, all we get are elusive answers. We never get answers to the questions that we want, we never get frank and concise answers; we always get an attempt to shroud what is actually happening in NBN Co. I asked a question about some remediation works needed for Bonnyrigg subdivision. I asked what the cost was and, as is always the case, the CEO of NBN Co. said that he did not know.
Didn't care!
Probably didn't care—that is right. So I put the question on notice and after months and months of waiting—he probably thought I would forget about it—the answer came back. I asked a very simple question: 'What was the cost of remediation works for Bonnyrigg subdivision?' He came back and said, 'The project was completed using standard NBN techniques.' That was the cost: 'The project has been completed using standard NBN techniques.'
So I then reminded him that to mislead a parliamentary committee was a most grievous matter and that he should be mindful of giving us the correct answer. After months we finally got the answer: they had wasted $20,000 on remediation works for Bonnyrigg. That item is relatively minor in terms of the total project, but the principle is far more important, that a parliamentary committee asked a concise question and got an answer that was meant to mislead. So if we are getting answers to a whole range of other questions that are equally misleading, when you are looking at the largest infrastructure project in this nation's history, the Australian taxpayer can have no faith in the answers that NBN Co. are giving and the Australian taxpayer can have no faith in their corporate plan, which is the greatest fairy story since The Wizard of Oz. The Australian taxpayer should have great cause for concern. Not only do we have a Treasurer who cannot keep spending under control; we have the CEO of NBN Co., Mike Quigley, who cannot keep spending under control. We have a project that is behind time, over budget and a waste of taxpayers' money. Taxpayers will be paying dearly for their incompetence.
People listening to this MPI debate might think they had just experienced a bit of deja vu, maybe a bit of a re-run of an old tape. But the old tape was not that old; it was from earlier today.
The coalition disrupt the proceedings of the House for urgencies and for all sorts of things they want to do just to have a debate, then they have an MPI just half an hour later on the exact same topic. They have no idea about their own agenda or how to run a program and certainly no idea about what the urgency is in a matter of public importance. So rather than talk about the issues I thought that I would have a look at what this MPI actually says and that maybe we could address the urgency. What is the urgency that is contained in this MPI? I had a bit of a think about what this urgency perhaps represents.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I will ask for the cooperation of the House. The last speaker, the member for Cowper, was heard in silence and the same courtesy should apply to every member of this House.
Thank you for the protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, from this rowdy mob, although I have to say they are not as rowdy as the contributions we had just after question time. There was a fair bit of hide, a fair bit of bluster—and a fair bit of spittle that went around the room at the same time. But it always indicates to me just how shallow, hollow and how empty the rhetoric is—the louder it is. We saw plenty of that before from the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney. Again, I thought I should have a close look at what this urgency matter is. What could be so urgent? Is something imminent about to happen? A collapse or an ending of something? This urgency starts to wear a little bit thin after more than two years of hearing it—'The government's going to collapse,' 'Something's going to happen,' all these things. It just is not the case. So I figured out what the urgency is. It is the urgency of these guys to warm their backsides on the seats of government. That is the urgency. The urgency is actually about them. It is about their personal urgency. They want to get on this side. That is the only urgency. These guys are in a hurry.
One thing that we do know is that they do not respect democracy. From day one the only mantra they have had is: 'We need an election tomorrow.' That is their whole mantra, that is their policy basis: 'We need an election tomorrow so that we can get to government quicker. Forget the three-year terms, forget the process, forget the Constitution.' The urgency of this motion is about how quick these guys can get themselves into the seats of power. Believe me, they have form. That is the only urgency.
Then I thought, if it is not just about the urgency issue, perhaps it is the control of government spending. What is urgent about the control of government spending? I thought there must be something disastrous happening either in Australia or in the world. I looked at the world and I thought, 'There is something disastrous happening.' Most of the world is feeling those ill winds of the global financial crisis. I know those opposite have forgotten already; they forgot the same day it happened. The global financial crisis, according to Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, just did not happen. They like to skip over that bit, because the Labor government actually did a good job of getting through it. So they do not want to talk about that; they do not want to remind people about that. So what is the urgency here? What is the getting back into control of the spending? I thought I had better go and check the books. What is the best way to find out if spending is out of control? Go and check the books. So I did. I went and had a look at the books and I found—guess what—that the Australian economy has grown larger, by 11 per cent, since we came to government. How is that even possible? We were facing a global financial crisis but we still managed to grow the economy. And guess what? We did not grow it by sacking people. That is what the Queensland LNP and Campbell Newman do and that is what Barry O'Farrell does in New South Wales. We grew it by adding jobs. We grew it by investing in infrastructure. We grew the economy by investing in education, investing in skills dealing with productivity and looking at what the economic drivers of the economy are.
I know they are hollow words for the opposition. They do not even know what those words mean. They are not concerned. In fact, in this one matter of public importance you can see what this opposition are all about. It is about their urgency to warm the seats of government, their urgency to run to the Lodge, their urgency to be in the halls of power—not to deliver anything, not to achieve some good, not to deliver some outcome and not to deliver better education outcomes or better health services.
Let us take a leaf out of the book of those LNP and Liberal and National party governments that are in government right now. We know they are on the same page and are singing from the same song sheet. They are in the same broad church. What are they doing? What are they doing to their economies? What are they doing in their states? Let us take a look at Queensland. You would think that in difficult economic times you would try to boost upwards the economy. You would perhaps try to support mining. You would not want to increase royalties. A direct hit—regardless of profit, just on the sheer amount you pull out of the ground. At the same time that we have got price pressures downwards on resources, they actually put a tax the other way. They put a tax on the quantity that comes out of the ground rather than when you make a profit. Where have the great market economists of the Liberal Party gone? They are not sitting on the opposition benches. They are not even on the crossbenches.
They're not sitting on your side!
If they are not sitting on our side and they are not sitting on your side, just which side are they sitting on? There are only two sides. Let me go through, again, some facts. Where have we spent the money?—hang on! We lifted the age pension, the largest single increase in the age pension, for those most in need in our economy—our older people who really need a boost.
Opposition members interjecting—
They are still arguing against it! They still do not want older people to get an age pension increase. They really hate that. It is disturbing. Was that a waste of money? I do not think it was. I think it is something good we did and is something that will outlive us as a government and hopefully outlive you, whenever you might be in government.
We saved over $3 billion by means-testing the private health insurance rebate to ensure it was fairer and more sustainable into the future. We understand the need to get the balance right between spending and saving. We have saved over $900 million by targeting family payments in a better way, making sure the baby bonus works in the way it is intended. We have saved over $1.9 billion by better targeting the tax concession for living-away-from-home allowances. We have saved over $900 million by reducing tax concessions for very-high-income earners. People have called for a long time for the lifting of the tax-free threshold. Why should it only be $6,000 before you pay tax? This government listened. We have lifted it not twice but three times, to $18,000. That is where we have spent the money.
Go and tell everyone out there that you want to take it back off them, because that is what you are saying by everything that you do—I was going to say in policies, but there are not any.
I thought we had nasty policies!
They are all nasty. They only have one policy and one mantra, which is the urgency to get to the Lodge and the urgency to be in the halls of power. They cannot wait. They are rubbing their hands with glee. You can see them at night, going: 'I can't wait. I can't wait to do what Campbell Newman does in Queensland. I can't wait to do what Barrel O'Farrell'—maybe he is a barrel—'Barry O'Farrell in New South Wales—
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
I remind the member for Herbert that he is not in his chair.
They cannot wait to get to the halls of power to do the first thing they always do, and all Australians know it, and that is to just start sacking people. How do you support an economy by just getting rid of people? It is a tragedy in this place. But when we recently heard some of the contributions to this debate I thought I had better listen to what the other side says, to make sure I get a grasp or a grip on what their argument is.
Their argument amounted to this, and I will summarise it. You start with a tax. You attack government department names: 'What a silly name for a government department.' I think the shadow Treasurer spent two minutes talking about silly names. That was his contribution to an economic debate. Then they attacked small business by saying: 'What a waste of money, to give it to small businesses that do things for other people. As long as it’s a small business related to climate change or anything that might be good for sustainability or the future, attack them. They're not worthy of being called a small business.'
Then they talked about flowers. The member for North Sydney spent a minute talking about flowers and the great waste. Then they went to their pet subject, their favourite topic at all times—that is, sacking people. They think this government spends too much money employing people.
Opposition members interjecting—
They go, 'Where's the money coming from?' This is all that is left. I will tell you where it is coming from and I will tell you where we have saved it, because I have already done some of that. And I will tell you where it will not go. It will not go to Liberal Party mates and to National Party mates, as under the previous Howard government. We saw enormous trunks of wasted money going to—if you want to talk about far-Left airy-fairy stuff—Liberal and National party mates. So it is clear in this place that after five years and more than two years since the last election we have done a good job to support jobs and the economy, and it is proven by the— (Time expired)
It is extraordinary. On a matter of public importance about Labor needing to bring its spending under control, from each of the Labor speakers we have heard, there has not been one mention of the word 'debt' or the word 'deficit'. The answer to why that is so is: they confirm they care about neither. We have seen something else with previous speakers—and I will exempt the last speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. As well as avoiding the topic of this MPI and launching attacks on our side of politics, the Assistant Treasurer, once again, demonstrated the incredible capacity Labor has to mix its metaphors when trying to tell a story. The member for North Sydney rightly said that we all grow up learning stories and fairytales. And sayings are handed down, are they not, from family to family? I was horrified to hear the Assistant Treasurer say in response to the member for Cowper that they were going to open the barn door and let the fox into the henhouse.
I'm confused and I'm National Party!
At first I thought that it is just a reflection on the Assistant Treasurer. I should not single out our old friend the admiral; this is just him. I should not generalise and say that this is a Labor Party trend, but then I was reminded, I regret to say, that this is in fact a trend with those opposite. We had the Treasurer last year say: 'They have their heads stuck so far in the sand they cannot see the wood for the trees.' This is just a small illustration of the competence of those opposite. Of course, if they mix their metaphors on something so simple, it is no wonder they cannot get any of their budget numbers right.
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
I am invited to attack you on debt and I will. Thank you for the invitation. I was not going to forget in the last seven minutes, but since you have asked me to recite the debt story, I think I will, because you failed to mention it. As my friend the member for Higgins has been pointing out—you said you listened to those opposite—$96 billion was the level of net government debt left behind by the Hawke-Keating government.
We had the Assistant Treasurer saying, 'What did those opposite do when they got into power in 1996? They reduced spending.' Why would we have done that? All through the election campaign in those days before the Charter of Budget Honesty you had Labor ministers saying that the budget was in surplus. When the election was over and there was a new government the Treasury said, 'Actually the budget's in deficit by $10 billion.' Net government debt was $96 billion. It took more than a decade of responsible budgets to pay off $96 billion of net government debt. In fact debt-free day, I think, was on 20 or 21 April 2006. It took 10 years to pay it down.
What happened after that with surpluses? Money began to be banked into the Future Fund—something Wayne Swan is looking at very closely today.
He can't keep his hands off it.
That was the debt story. It was Labor's debt story of $96 billion; our story of paying off that debt. Remember when debt was paid off and money was being banked there was a guy called the member for Griffith—who is still here in this House—as the Leader of the Opposition saying that he was a fiscal conservative and he believed in surplus budgets. Then the Labor government was elected. What has happened since? Have they produced a surplus budget? No.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Don't you worry, we will go all through the years. Let us have a look at what has happened since. It started with $45 billion in the bank. Net debt is now projected to be $144 billion or $145 billion. Let us look at how accurate they are. Let us judge them on their precision. For the member for Kingston up the back, let us just take the last two years. Do you agree the GFC is over?
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
No, sorry; not on the talking points. That was a question without notice. Let us take the last two years. It is helpful that you do that. Let us just start from the end of the last election. The mid-year update was brought out in December 2011. It is worth having a look at what the Treasurer said debt would be for the 2012-13 year, what it would peak at. Back then, this is under two years ago, the Treasurer said, 'Net government debt would peak at $93 billion.' About six months later, in the budget of last year, he said it would peak at about $104 billion in the 2012-13 year. Then at the mid-year update at the end of last year he said $133 billion. This year's budget it is $143 billion. So from $93 billion to $143 billion—what is a $50 billion blow-out in two years? If you compare it with the debt blow-out in the last five or six years of the Keating government, where net government debt went from something like $17 billion to $96 billion, that is just a blow-out of about $79 billion or $80 billion.
You start to get the picture. Net government debt just escalates under Labor every single year. It is escalating today. You do not have to just look at their inaccuracy on net government debt projections; look at the last financial year. Over a similar period the initial projection for the budget deficit was $12 billion, then $22 billion, then $37 billion, then $44 billion on budget night. I do not have the final number yet; we will be getting it any day. I have to say that, if these guys were playing basketball, they would miss the backboard. If they were kicking for goal in an AFL match, they would hit the interchange bench. They would be out of camera shot.
It reminds me of an infamous aviator who filed a flight plan in the 1930s to fly, I think, from New York to California. He filed the flight plan, took off and landed in Ireland. His name was Wrong Way Corrigan. I am being a bit cruel to Wrong Way Corrigan because it transpired later that he actually meant to go in a different direction. It was all a bit of a trick.
But in relation to debt—$144 billion—we have had a $50 billion blow-out in two years. And now we have a $120 billion black hole blow-out. Those opposite will announce spending plans but they will not announce how they are paid for. It is always the same way under Labor: escalating debt and more taxes. It is the same way. When was Labor's last budget surplus?
1988?
It was in 1989. You have heard the story about what Labor does. If you look at the last couple of years, you will know the future under Labor. In their hearts, those on the government side know it. That is why the famous five stood up in caucus. Four members of this House—the fab four—started to ping the Treasurer for his irresponsibility. (Time expired)
It is no surprise that today the opposition have come in and started their new fear campaign. It is interesting that today, for the first time in question time, they did not ask about carbon pricing. And that is because their fear campaign on that issue has run out of steam. It has run out of steam and now they are casting their minds to the next fear campaign: 'What can we now scare the Australian people senseless about?' That is exactly what they are doing now: talking down our economy and putting concern out there, when really our economic fundamentals are very good in this country. Believe it or not, the opposition refuses to acknowledge that. They think, 'We did not succeed in scaring people out the carbon price, so we will move on now and scare people about the economy.'
I think it is important to get the facts on the table. I have to say that there seems to be an ability by the opposition to completely ignore the existence of a global financial crisis that this government faces. I know that those on the opposite side of the chamber are becoming protectionists. I imagine that the member for Casey and the member for Higgins would be concerned about the protectionist elements, but the member for Cowper is probably cheering for them on the sidelines. The opposition are becoming protectionists, but that should not stop them from looking—
I ask the member for Casey to resume his seat. We know what is happening. I can see what is happening, so he should resume his seat.
As I was saying, those on the opposite side of the chamber are becoming a protectionist party. However, they should look outside at the rest of the world to see what significant achievements this country has made and should stop this fear campaign about our economy.
Let's start with our growth. In the Euro zone, the economy after December 2007 shrank by 1.7 per cent. The Japanese economy shrank by 1.7 per cent and the US economy grew by just 1.2 per cent. What happened here in Australia? What happened here in Australia was 10.3 per cent growth. That is an astonishing achievement when you look around the rest of the world and at what we have done.
That did not happen by accident. That happened because this government acted when it was necessary. This government acted to protect jobs. I know that for those on the other side of the chamber it is a foreign concept to act to protect jobs; in fact, one could say that, for them, it is the opposite: they act to protect unemployment in some ways. But we acted to protect jobs. We made it very clear that we would act to protect jobs and, when growth returned to trend, we would do the economically responsible thing, make savings and return the budget to surplus.
That is exactly what we are doing. Over the last five budgets we have seen savings of $130-plus billion. That is because we know that it is responsible, when we are facing an issue where there is economic downturn, for the government to intervene, and when it is not facing economic downturn the government has to withdraw. That is exactly what we have done. We have made savings in a whole range of areas.
And, might I say, they are savings that the opposition continually vote against. There was the Chronic Dental Health Scheme, about which there has been some conjecture. That was a scheme that was rorted by many people. It was a scheme that was not means-tested. It did not matter whether you were a pensioner or a millionaire, you could get access to the scheme. It was a poorly targeted scheme but when we moved to close that down the Liberal Party voted against it.
Then there was the private health insurance rebate. That was a rebate that we believed should be properly and appropriately targeted, but those on the other side of the House voted against it. So, while we have been doing our bit to make savings, we have seen the opposition irresponsibly vote against that. That is why I can only see this MPI as representing crocodile tears. When the government have been working to produce savings, unfortunately the opposition have just voted against those measures.
It is not surprising that there is a $70 billion black hole in the opposition's figures. They say there are answers about where the money will come from but they will not actually tell us where. Which hospitals, which jobs, what education spending will they cut? But we do know where the money will go if they keep to their promises—and that is to their direct action plan.
We have not heard much about their direct action plan, but it is an incredibly expensive plan. We have been talking about wasting money. A direct action plan that costs billions and billions of dollars, with no change to climate change, one could call a direct waste of money. But the opposition, if they continue to uphold that they believe climate change is occurring and that they need to act, will implement, if they are ever elected, this direct action plan. That would mean a tax bill, if they do not find the savings, of $1,300 for every single household.
They will not tell us where the money is coming from. Often the Labor Party get in these debates, 'You're just making this up; there's no $70 billion black hole.' Of course, the $70 billion figure does not come from the Labor Party; it comes directly from the mouths of those opposite. It is time for the Liberal Party, who profess to be good economic managers, to be very clear about how they are going to fund this. Of course, this is on the back of an $11 billion black hole at the last election. It shows that when it comes to being transparent, those on the other side are a little sloppy.
Our economy is going very well. Since coming to office we have created 800,000 jobs.
You have?
This is despite 27 million jobs lost worldwide. Since coming to government there have been 800,000 jobs created. Are you disputing that for some reason?
You said you created them.
Order! All remarks are to be through the chair.
Since this government has come to office, there have been 800,000 new jobs. I know you do not want to talk about jobs. I can understand that those on the back bench may be embarrassed about Campbell Newman and about Barry O'Farrell. I can tell you: those on the front bench are cheerleading and saying, 'Bring on those job losses!' But this side of the House does care.
Let's go through some of the other important economic figures. Inflation is at 13-year lows. Interest rates are now at record lows of 3.5 per cent—compared to 6.75 per cent when the Liberal Party left office. There is a huge investment pipeline and very low debt. Those on the other side failed to compare debt around the developed world. As a percentage of GDP, Australia has a very low debt. We are bringing the budget back to surplus and we are making responsible cuts.
We heard those opposite talk about how great it was, how responsible they were, in the Howard years. A lot of people would remember the $121 million they spent on their Work Choices advertising campaign, and I do not think a lot of people would think that was very responsible spending. Do not forget the $10 million spent on the cloud-seeding rainmaker by the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the member for Wentworth. There was also the cheese factory that never made cheese. And the list goes on. This was at a time when it was raining gold—and what did they do? They squandered it. We were given a difficult task when we came into office: to deal with the GFC and ensure that people were still employed. We are managing that in the economically responsible way.
At the end of the day I think the Australian people will see through those opposite. They will not be able to forget. There is also the Woolies and Coles tax that they are going to impose on the Australian people. I think the Australian people will see through the irresponsible economic ideas of those opposite. (Time expired)
After the ducking and weaving that we saw today in question time from the Treasurer and from the Prime Minister on their $120 billion black hole, it is no wonder at all that the people who were sent in here to defend this matter of public importance were the Assistant Treasurer, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and the member for Kingston. I feel very sorry for them because Wayne Swan was not prepared to come into this chamber and provide the facts himself as to where the money is coming from.
He was incapable.
He was absolutely incapable, as my learned colleague highlights.
Apart from the member for Kingston blithely dismissing the discussion of this very important matter as merely a scare campaign, the thing that really struck me, when I listened more attentively to the Assistant Treasurer, the member for Lindsay, was that he said there was a terrible pattern of deceit occurring here. He actually had the temerity to point the finger at this side of the chamber. He suggested that somehow this is an issue for us. I have three words for him: pot, kettle, black. If we want to talk about a pattern let us focus on the deceit that has been practised on the Australian people.
Let's first focus on the promise that has been made by the Treasurer to deliver next year a $1.5 billion surplus. In question time today, when the Treasurer was asked to guarantee this $1.5 billion surplus, he talked about it being simply an aspiration. If we want to talk about deceit, why is the Treasurer not prepared to guarantee this tiny hurdle that he set himself, of a $1.5 billion surplus? Why isn't he prepared to put his job on the line? Why isn't he prepared to resign if he does not meet this tiny target? Because he simply does not believe what he says. He is practising a cruel hoax on the people of Australia. The reason he cannot guarantee it, the reason he will not put his job on the line, is that he has a huge problem—a $120 billion black hole. If there is a pattern on the other side, it is a pattern of spending and taxing.
Today we heard from Standard & Poor's that in fact we can expect a $20 billion deficit next year. This comes off the back of a previous report released by Macroeconomics that said it would be $15 billion. It seems to be going up—it seems to be trending in the wrong direction. The reason the $120 billion is so important is that it is $20,000 for the average four-person Australian family. We know that this $120 billion is not simply a one-off. What the government are doing with all of their new spending announcements is locking in recurrent spending. Why do we care about that? We care because at some point someone is going to have to pay for it. Someone is going to have to pay for the big-spending announcements of the government that have not been funded, that are not accounted for in the budget.
Despite the fact that the Prime Minister made the claim that every time she made an announcement she would properly provide for that announcement, she has not done so on this occasion; nor has the Treasurer. We are simply told we have to wait for MYEFO when it is announced and simply trust the government that they will somehow account for this spending. Well, it is not just us who are concerned on this side of the chamber about the government's big spending announcements. In fact, there are many on the other side of the chamber who are concerned.
I read with great interest an article by Stephen Scott and Jessica Irvine in today's Courier Mail in Brisbane which said Labor backbenchers are urging the Gillard government to raise taxes and cut perks for high earners to ensure it can pay for big-spending promises. Labor is doing that because it knows that is the only way to fund its promises. It comes off the back of the concerns raised by five Labor backbenchers who yesterday tackled the Treasurer about government spending priorities and the ability to pay for those priorities. Who are these brave souls on the opposite side of the chamber? Who are these people who were sick of the culture of deceit in this government? They were Senator Doug Cameron, Ed Husic, Janelle Saffin, Kelvin Thomson and Jeff Lyons. They are the only people who are concerned about the future generations of Australians who will be forced to foot the bill for the spending announcements.
But why has it got such urgency today? It is because we also read that the government, on top of their billions of dollars of announcements to do with their dental scheme, their Gonski plan and the NDIS, is going to spend an extra $1.4 billion in paying off childcare workers. Why is it doing that? It is because it is a union demand. It is a demand by United Voice, which is a union, and, as was said and reported in the paper today, it is going to be paid by this government. They have not denied it. They are going to announce it because Julia Gillard is being forced to. In an article today it says she is being forced to shore up union support for her leadership.
So when they talk about jobs on that side of the chamber, the only job they are really concerned about is Julia Gillard's job. The only job they are concerned about saving is Julia Gillard's. Julia Gillard says we have to wait for MYEFO, as does the Treasurer. We have to wait to understand how it is that they are going to fund this $120-billion black hole. They say we should trust them. If we were to trust the other side of the chamber, we would have believed them when they said this year they were going to deliver a deficit of only $12 billion. But that grew over an 18-month period from $12 billion to $23 billion to $37 billion and hit $44 billion. So how can we trust anything that the government has to say on this issue? How can we trust a Prime Minister who said in this term of parliament that she would throw open the curtains and let the sunshine in and yet, in response to this matter of public importance, we have not heard one word of detail from those opposite as to how their $120-billion black hole will be paid for? How can we trust a Prime Minister that only days before the last election promised that there would be no carbon tax are under the government she led? And she back flipped weeks later in order to do a dirty deal with the Greens so that she could form government.
And keep her job.
And so she could keep her job, as pointed out by my colleague. We cannot trust this government. This $120-billion black hole comes at the worst possible time. It comes at a time in our domestic environment where we know the retail and manufacturing sectors are hurting. We know that families are under increased stress, that cost of living is one of the biggest issues that families are facing and that small businesses are finding it really tough.
We know that overseas the financial crisis has not passed. In fact, the financial crisis we see in Greece and in France has morphed into a social crisis. I note that we hear constant refrains from the other side that Australia is doing well when you compare us to France and when you compare us to Greece. But they only want to compare us to the worst-performing economies. They only ever want to make that comparison.
This $120-billion black hole comes at a time where commodity prices are down 30 per cent over a 12-month period. We are seeing a huge revenue shortfall because of that. We are seeing company tax receipts being reduced and yet the government continues to spend and refuses to say how it will be paid for. There is a better way. We know from experience that a coalition government can right the wrongs of an irresponsible Labor government. We did it before when we repaid $96 billion of debt. We left a surplus $20 billion and we provided for the future with $70 billion in the Future Fund. The government want to raid that future fund to pay for their spending. There is a better way and that is with the election of a coalition government. (Time expired)
This is an opportunity for me, which I appreciate, to put on record some more context around the dental scheme that is being proposed by this government and to provide a better understanding, I think, than we have seen so far in much of this debate on exactly how the economics of dental care in Australia work.
I already pointed out in my first contribution that dentistry in Australia is a predominantly private enterprise and that any solution will always rest privately with dentists. It was something that was respected by this side when in government, that devised the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The great myth that is being perpetrated by the other side about the coalition's scheme is that it blew out in cost. I think you need to remember some basic facts about public dentistry in this country, which has been perennially underfunded. On average there are up to three-quarters of a million Australians who, at any one time, are seeking out dental care which they cannot afford privately. That cohort are predominantly older and, more frequently than the rest of the population, have chronic disease. What is most important of all is that they find it virtually impossible to afford private dental care.
The scheme proposed by the coalition increased in its initial estimates from around $100 million to close to $1 billion a year. Let us step back and see whether that is a failure or in fact a success. The first piece of evidence in favour of this scheme is that dental waiting lists in the public dental facilities decreased by 40 per cent during this period of Commonwealth investment in dental care. Secondly, if you have three-quarters of a million people, each needing between $1,000 and $2,500 worth of dental care which they cannot afford, then you know what? That adds up to over a billion dollars. If anything, the success of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme is that it reached out to the most vulnerable cohort.
I pointed out in my earlier contribution that the one thing that this program focused on was looking after the sick. And what we are seeing over here is, on the one hand, a Labor government criticising us for that and instead devising a system that looks after concession card holders; but, on the other hand, they are actually devising a children's dental scheme which runs almost identically to the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme in its functionality, as far as a dentist is concerned. So what we have is a 'mini-me' dental scheme, starting of course not tomorrow or next year, because the budget pain felt by this government is simply greater than the dental pain felt by Australians—no, it is a program that starts in nearly two years time. When it starts, it will be exactly the same: a cap of $1,000 every two years for dentists to look after young people's teeth. So the criteria in that scheme make us just as at risk of the rorts that have been criticised in the previous scheme, except that they will be treating a person with a birth certificate that has a smaller number on it than the coalition scheme did.
The complaints about rorts and irregularities in the CDDS were around one per 1,500 patients. That is quite consistent with a lot of our MBS data. Did the government act to fix the problem? No, they did not. They have had four to five years to fix the problem and they have elected not to. In fact, offers have been made by other parts of this chamber, and they have been passed up. This government preferred to see this program run up to close to $1 billion a year, when simple changes and modifications to it as it was rolled out could have saved $330 million a year.
The second very important piece of evidence is that the use of the scheme was in decline as the burden of disease was being treated—and we know that from the per-case figures: $2,225 for adults; $2,125 for children. But this had fallen to $1,174 by this year. And the whole program itself, within two years, was likely to fall to $374 million a year; quite affordable, and not that far away from the estimates when this scheme was set up. The fault of the CDDS, if there is one, is that it simply mopped up the public waiting list of dental disease, and it did it very effectively.
I know, over there, they were talking about all those millionaires getting their dental treatment. Well, I will remind you of one thing: millionaires pay their taxes, and they have paid their way handsomely. Once you start denying Australians basic universal health care, I dare you to do the same to Medicare. Go on: cut them out of Medicare. But you will not do that, will you? No, these millionaires paid their way. What percentage of the CDDS were people on concession cards? Eighty per cent. So, 80 per cent of the CDDS clients were not millionaires; they were concession card holders getting the dental care they needed.
The government listened to some unusual sources of information. One of them was a doctor by the name of David Rivett, who said just recently, in an AMA publication:
… a loud Hooray for the termination of the—
CDDS—and:
This program has been a real burden for GPs, with patients often supported by family members, aggressively demanding dental funding …
How outrageous! How frustrating for those poor doctors having patients coming in saying, 'We want dental care, and we know there's a scheme that can look after us.' His second criticism is that an 'elderly diabetic' was 'referred for dental care under the scheme to improve her nutrition' and she came back 'two weeks later' with a $4,000 bill, including 'fillings and some descaling work.' I don't know if Mr David Rivett can even read a receipt on dental work—I don't think he's got any dental training—but I am glad that diabetics in this country were getting the dental care they could never get in the public system.
I have one minute left, and I will take you through a very important journey. If you are a sick kid, you were getting care under the coalition's program—$2,125 a year. That sick kid will wait for two years and, when they finally get the care, it will be cut to $1,000 every two years. That will be cut-price dental for that kid. Those sick kids are worse off. Now, children who are not sick have always had to go to private dentistry or public hospitals—and they will still have to do exactly the same thing until 2014. The sick adults that have been getting care under the coalition scheme now have to wait; they miss out—and they will miss out because, if they are not concession card holders, there will be nothing for them, and the paltry $212 million a year transferred to the states will simply be soaked up, but will not make much difference to those dreadful year-after-year waiting lists in public dental. This is a bad move. And the most vulgar part of it is the 15 to 19 months where there will be nothing for Australians in dental care. That is a great shame and that is why we will be opposing the bill.
I rise to speak in support of the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. I saw a couple of headlines, one entitled, 'Dental care is failing the needy', from the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 March 2007; and 'Country aching over dental crisis', from the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 January 2007. On this side of the House we are very proud of the long history and record of Labor governments contributing to the oral health needs of our country. Those opposite have no plan. You will hear one speaker after another criticising us and standing up on that side of the chamber for millionaires, again and again and again.
The particulars of this legislation are that it amends the Dental Benefits Act 2008. It sets in place a legislative framework for the Child Dental Benefits Schedule to commence operation in January 2014 and it extends the age range of people eligible to receive the dental services to include children of at least two years of age but under 18 years of age. Currently the legislation provides for children aged 12 to 18 years, under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan.
The bill before the chamber results in an easy operation for mums and dads across Australia. The Medicare Teen Dental Plan is effectively being replaced by a better and more comprehensive arrangement called the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, which will provide far more children with the kind of access to the good dental care they need. This legislation forms part of the package of the $4.1 billion reform announced in August 2012.
I found a reference a while ago to something that former finance minister Lindsay Tanner said. It was in reference to arguments that took place after the budget in 2008, where the coalition steadfastly opposed our reforms with respect to oral health care in this country. Those opposite are very keen to spend the money, but they oppose the taxes this government has imposed to provide good health care, good road infrastructure, good assistance in education, assistance with superannuation increases, and flood recovery and the like. They are very happy to take the credit, to spend the money, but to oppose, irresponsibly, the bills necessary for the funding of those outcomes.
Their irresponsible attitude in relation to legislation we brought in in 2008 resulted in $284 million being wasted by those opposite in relation to this, because they blocked it in the Senate. One of the first acts of the previous coalition government, in 1996, was to cut $100 million in funding and leave Australia with an ever-burgeoning public dental health crisis, to the point where about 650,000 Australians were on the dental waiting lists. I saw that and experienced it when I was the chair of the Esk Health Reference Committee, as part of the West Moreton Health Community Council. At that stage, Esk, which is located in the Brisbane Valley, was in the electorate of the member for Dickson, who happens to be the shadow minister for health. It is interesting that year after year not a word was said by him in relation to those issues in his own electorate as the waiting lists became worse and worse in his area. We did not see a press release. We did not see a statement. I saw no correspondence, no overtures to the health council and no offers of funding to assist oral health care in his own electorate.
In 1994 the then Keating Labor government introduced state funding for dental services, targeting those on low incomes, who are the most in need. And, as I said, one of the first acts of the Howard government was to take that away, just as they ripped $1 billion out of the childcare sector not long after they were elected, in 1996. Earlier on I read from headlines in the Sydney Morning Herald dating back to March and January 2007, and they just say it all about the legacy of those opposite. I will read them again: 'Dental care is failing the needy'; and, 'Country aching over dental crisis'. That is the legacy of nearly 12 years of coalition government in this country.
In 2008 we introduced a means tested plan funding annual check-ups for teenagers. It took a Labor government to do that. One-third of Australians at that time could not afford dental care, with people on waiting lists for up to five years. One of the things I am most proud of with this government is the fact that we have doubled health funding in this country—it is in partnership with the states, but we are the ones putting up the money, to 2019-20. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who adopt the attitude of slash and burn. We will see that if they ever sit on this side of the chamber. We know that because the now Leader of the Opposition was the health minister in the Howard coalition government when they de-funded public health and hospital systems in this country by $1 billion. What an impact that had on public health.
Perhaps we are now not expecting him to copy Campbell Newman in Queensland. Perhaps Campbell Newman was copying him, when he was health minister. In places like Townsville we have seen 45 front-line nurses go. In my electorate, too, front-line services have been slashed as jobs have gone. This has real consequences for many areas around the country.
Today we have heard all the jeremiads from those opposite about our policy. We have seen them one after another get up here and talk about the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. They never talk about the fact that a scheme that had previously been costed at $90 million to taxpayers was, and is, costing $80 million a month. They have the temerity to criticise us about waste and mismanagement when it is their policy that has caused this. Former finance minister Lindsay Tanner belled the cat back in June 2008 saying that we were going to save $248 million by getting rid of the scheme we are proposing to get rid of with this legislation. Their scheme means that if you are a millionaire you are not means tested. It means that if you are a kid with bad teeth, in a regional or rural area, you really are disadvantaged compared with someone who might live in a salubrious suburb in Sydney or Melbourne. The scheme is not means tested and not targeted at all. It is open to significant abuse, and has been abused. That is the reality of the scheme we are getting rid of today.
The legislation that we are bringing forward today is part of a package. I was also most proud of the fact that this government in the budget put forward $515.3 million as an investment in oral health for those who can least afford it, for a blitz on the waiting lists. The 400,000 people waiting for care on public dental waiting lists will receive the benefits of those measures that we introduced in the budget: new spending to boost the dental workforce and improve facilities in those regional and rural areas I am talking about—front-line services being provided to build the health service; front-line services that are required, particularly in regional and rural Queensland, and were so nastily and meanly slashed by the LNP at a state level in my home state of Queensland: more than 4,000 health workers, pathology services, dental services, breast screening, nursing, TB—the lot. Services are being downsized and people are being thrown out of jobs across the length and breadth of Queensland.
So, while we are here today, bringing forward assistance to about 3.4 million Australian children who are eligible for funding for dental care, I wonder what those people opposite from Queensland will say? I wonder what they are saying to their communities in places like Gladstone, Hervey Bay, Townsville, Mount Isa and all those areas where there is downsizing and where jobs are being outsourced? I wonder what they say to them?
I know what the CEO of the West Moreton-Oxley Medicare Local had to say about the package that is before the chamber today. Vicki Poxon said that the announcement was particularly vital for the residents of the Ipswich and Somerset regions, which hold a comparatively large number of low-income households. Ms Poxon said:
An announcement like this will go directly towards improving the all-round health and wellbeing of our residents, in particular, children and pensioners who need it the most.
Considering roughly 20 per cent of the West Moreton-Oxley region is made up of children under 14 years, this is an announcement that will be very well received by households in our area …
Of particular importance to us is ensuring our rural areas are given much-needed assistance in the more isolated locations, so we welcome this announcement as a step forward for those residents.
It’s an unfortunate reality that for many families proper dental care is simply not a financial possibility, and as a Medicare Local, this package brings us closer to our goal of seeing Australians access proper care so that they can live healthier, happier lives.
I think that is an outstanding statement and absolutely accurate. The package does strike a balance between improving services for low-income cardholders and a new investment in prevention. One thousand dollars in two years for children for check-ups and diagnoses—that is the kind of thing that is important.
We believe that preventative health care is really critical. On the other side of the chamber, they are the people who opposed the National Preventive Health Agency. On this side of the chamber we believe in preventive health, and we believe that we need to spend more to prevent ill-health. It is a good investment in the long term.
Investment in children's dental care is an investment in the future for those children. When I was a practising lawyer in the jurisdiction of family law, I saw many people in very difficult circumstances in what we used to call child custody cases. There were some terrible, terrible cases of children whose dental health had been neglected by their parents, sadly—it was abuse, neglect and, almost, family violence, what had happened in those cases. Those parents, and sometimes grandparents, brought applications in the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court seeking parenting orders. I recall specifically one case that I dealt with in Bundaberg in relation to this where the child's teeth had to be entirely taken out. It was awful because of that. I was acting, actually, for the grandparents. The parents were suffering and had very little access to money and very few parenting skills, but it was a horrible case, and I saw many of those types of cases in my time as a lawyer.
We need to do more to help parents to care for their children. But we also need to fund these services better. Better oral health care for children results not just in a good outcome for their physical wellbeing but also a good outcome for the general community and the economy, because children who care for their teeth are less likely to have serious health problems later on in life, are more likely to have greater confidence in themselves and higher self-esteem, and are more likely to get good educational outcomes and good jobs and to contribute to community life.
This is an investment in the future. It is a good package that will have good outcomes. And for Queensland this is a fantastic outcome. We have seen the dental waiting-list money from the budget: $67.3 million in additional funding and for public clinics now for low-income adults, $249.4 million. We are seeing great outcomes from this government in terms of the health of our country—opposed, always, by those opposite. (Time expired)
I like the member for Blair, but he came in here and did not say one word about the sick and the poor and what they are going to do until 2014. He did not say one word about their chronic dental problems and what is going to happen to them until this scheme kicks in. I would be willing to wager $20 on the fact that that kid who had all his teeth pulled out probably had them pulled out under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The member for Blair comes in here every day and rails at the Queensland government about the cuts and job losses and everything like that, but I ask the member for Blair: where was he when the Queensland government was not paying their health workers? Where are the speeches in the Hansard about how badly treated the Queensland health workers were by Bligh's Labor government? The member just mentioned tuberculosis. Let us not forget that it was ex-Premier Bligh who pulled the funding from tuberculosis in the Torres Strait. And it is this health minister that continues to do so and who will not do anything about it. We have got drug-resistant tuberculosis and all sorts of problems up there. We did not hear him talk on anything. He is very selective about it and should be very careful.
I rise to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. This bill seeks to amend the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to allow the establishment of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, revising the Medicare Teen Dental Plan to extend the age range of children currently covered by the public dental system. Notably, this bill comes with a price tag of $2.7 billion, a little more than half of the government's recently announced changes to the dental system. What this creates is the 12th new bureaucracy loaded onto the health system since this Labor-Greens government came to power. It is something you all should be very proud of.
This bill needs to be considered in the context of Labor's wider changes to dental health, announced recently by the Minister for Health. The introduction of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule is one component of this plan. The first part of these changes involves the scrapping of the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, or CDDS, which will come into effect on 30 November this year. There are nearly 650,000 people on the waiting list for this scheme, the waiting list for which can reach five years. But the new scheme will not start on 1 December this year; this new scheme will start in 2014!
Straight up I have to question the minister's motives over this change. The CDDS was introduced by the coalition. It was created by the member for Warringah. The Labor Party has been against this program for a while and I cannot help but ask whether it is just because it is the Leader of the Opposition's program. Those opposite talk about budget blow-outs and rorts of the system and they have aggressively pursued dentists over largely inadvertent mistakes in paperwork. But the data shows the average claim per patient has been only $1,716, well below half the maximum $4,250 allowable under the scheme. This has been a good program. Those opposite complain that the CDDS costs $1 billion per year and that that is excessive. Yet the minister says that her scheme will cost $1 billion per year—that is, $4 billion.
This bill is about expanding coverage to children, but over 60,000 services were provided to children under the CDDS. Could it just be that dental patients have to suffer for this government to take a swing at the Leader of the opposition? Geez, that would be a cynical outlook. The CDDS is about serious dental problems; it is about chronic conditions. We on this side of the House do understand that dental issues are the second biggest cause of admission to Townsville Hospital, behind only diabetes. What we are talking about is not only a big health issue in itself; if we do not treat it as soon as we are aware of it, it will be an even bigger problem in hospital emergency rooms.
The CDDS will end on 30 November. In fact, services under the CDDS have already finished—nobody who applied after 7 September this year will even get on the list. Its replacement will not begin until 1 July 2014, yet the member for Blair stood there and rail against the Campbell Newman government, saying that he is leaving people high and dry. It beggars belief. That is almost two years that people with chronic dental problems and who cannot afford to fix it themselves will have to wait to get anything done about them. Remember, over 80 per cent who claim this thing are in fact card holders. They are the poorest and weakest in our community. That is almost two years from today for dental concerns to become major and far more expensive problems; and that is even if there is a plan for 2014. As I said, there are currently around 650,000 people on the waiting list for the CDDS. This government expects that, come 1 July 2014, it will have a plan for those who have been waiting another 17 months to get to the front of the queue. It beggars belief. I have had constituents in Townsville who need work done under this program call me. They have told me that they have received notice from their dentist that they need to schedule their surgery as soon as possible, or else they will be waiting at least another two years—if it is delivered at all. That is not right and it is not fair.
It also needs to be noted that there is a 13-month period during which the children that this bill supposedly helps will have to wait before the new program starts at the beginning of 2014. One of the core fundamentals of the ethical code in the health fields is 'first do no harm'. That is the catchcry of the Leader of the Opposition. It should be one of the fundamentals of government. Instead, this government is doing the exact opposite by hanging out to dry for another two years the thousands of patients in urgent need of this dental program. It is outrageous that the Prime Minister and the health minister can get out there spruiking their investment in dental services while stripping everything away from those in most desperate need for at least those two years.
This bill represents more of the same in Labor's ad hoc approach to allied health. A governmental approach to the health system needs to be about the bigger picture. As I said, dental issues are the second biggest cause of admission to Townsville Hospital: if you can treat them you do not save just the patient, you save health spending as well. It is typical of this government's inconsistency that it can pour money into the dental field—money it does not have or even plan to provide—right after it has stripped back private health insurance rebates. It gives with one hand and takes with the other.
The attack on allied health by this government through means-testing private health insurance increases the withdrawal by people from their private health cover. People look at the range of their cover and say, 'Okay, it's going to cost us more. What can we go without?' We will see a dropping of allied health services such as dentists, physiotherapists, optometrists, occupational therapists and the like. We will eventually see these allied health professionals leaving places like Ayr, Ingham, Charters Towers, Innisfail and Tully. They will close their doors and move to the bigger cities, because there will not be the critical mass of people they need to keep their doors open. This will have a domino effect on all health services and will create the conditions for chronic dental problems. There are people on this scheme who should be accessing the CDDS, who need to go to a dentist but cannot afford to. They cannot afford to come to Townsville to get it done, much less go to Brisbane. We are just making it even harder for these people all the way through. That is especially the case for people in rural towns and communities.
By bringing in these changes, the government are delivering to these people the fate they are expressly trying to avoid. The member for Blair spoke about the trial in Hervey Bay. It was a distressing story. Some poor kid had to have every tooth in his head pulled out. I guarantee that kid was not going to a dentist from the beginning. That is not anything to do with a dental scheme; that is parent neglect and they should be charged for it. These are the people we need to get to. These are the children who will eventually be noticed by the teacher and who will get into the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. This is not going to be picked up with a bit of a scrape and plaque removal. They will get $1,000 every year to be fixed up.
The question waiting to be answered on the dental bills to come is: where is the money coming from? These changes are supposed to be ready to go in 2014. That is inside the forward estimates, but where exactly is it detailed in the budget? It is not in there. This is yet another example of this government making the grandiose announcements that they do so very well. They make it sound good. They throw around the big money. Then they walk away, leaving the job half-finished behind them. Where is the detail of these plans? Where is the detail of where the money is coming from? Where is the detail about what will happen to patients who will need dental care between now and 2014? Where is the detail of how much this will actually cost each year? You cannot do half the job and then pat yourself on the back. Yet that is what we see from this government time and time again. Whether it is about education, charities regulation, the NDIS, increased refugee intake; the list goes on and it's got dental health at the top.
This government is like the workers who turn up at starting time and put the billy on, have a cuppa until it is time to go to smoko, then go to the toilet until lunch. Eventually they might get an hour or so of work in in the afternoon. They go home and say they are putting in. That is what this government does—it does not deliver. I can only assume at this point that the Treasurer has entirely given up any hope of achieving the surplus he has promised so many times.
The coalition supports investment in dental health. We have an established scheme. We have form on this. We deliver. The government cannot just announce policy on the run that has a huge price tag and no plan. There are some 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists already. Are the dental patients who need work before these schemes begin in 2014 just expected to shuffle up to the back of that queue, pop a Panadol, have a lie down, put some ice in their mouth, that sort of thing? It is time this government put some thought into delivery, instead of trying to wedge the member for Griffiths or vilify the member for Warringah.
My good friend Senator Ian Macdonald says that good policy will always lead to great results. This is bad policy formation with no consultation with anyone apart from Labor's lords and masters, the Greens. You always have to worry when a Labor minister turns up at a press conference to make an announcement and you see the Greens spokesperson at their shoulder. You know it is going to cost. You know it is going to be expensive. You know it has not been thought through. You know it has been done for any reason other than that it is good policy. It does not make sense.
This is bad legislation, uncosted, and it will hurt the most vulnerable people. This will not lead us to great results; this will lead us to nowhere but inequity, especially in rural and regional Australia. This scheme will hurt the people most in need and it should be opposed because this is bad government. You people are hurting the very people you seek to help. It is not on. You should drop this legislation and continue with what is a great scheme. I thank the House.
I am proud to stand here today to support the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. In fact, it is one of the most important bills to be introduced in this place this year as it is going to improve the lives of many Australians by assisting them with dental care. The bill, once enacted, will commence on 1 July 2014. The bill amends the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to set up the legislative framework for a child dental benefits schedule, which forms part of the government's $4.1 billion dental reform package which Minister Plibersek—and what a fine minister for health she is—announced on 29 August 2012. The Child Dental Benefits Schedule will replace the Medicare Teen Dental Plan from 1 July 2014. This bill will mean that, for three million children, going to the dentist will be just like seeing a GP. This is a landmark achievement for this government.
Going to the dentist is something many families cannot afford. We, the Gillard Labor government, are doing something about that. Unlike those sitting opposite, we are in tune with the community. We have listened to concerns of parents around the country and we are making it more affordable to access good dental care. Some 3.4 million children whose families get family tax benefit part A, Abstudy, carer payment, disability support pension, parenting payment, special benefits, youth allowance, double orphan pension, the Veterans' Children's Education Scheme payment or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme payment will qualify for the new scheme Dental for Kids.
Families will be entitled to $1,000 per child every two years over the life of the package. I note that parents will be able to take their children to either private or public dental services to access this program, which is fantastic. This is an investment in prevention because we know that our oral health as children is the best predicator of oral health as adults. As I have said in this place many times, the only way to save money in health is to do things right and to do them early. This scheme is a great example of this. In addition to dental for kids, the dental reform package will provide extra funding for 1.4 million additional services for adults on low incomes, including pensioners and concession card holders and those with special needs, to have better access to dental health care in the public system. These measures will be very welcome in my electorate of Bass, I am sure.
Importantly, it will mean more services and more dentists in areas of most need outside capital cities and large regional centres like my electorate of Bass. The package comes on top of $515 million in the last budget, which included a blitz on public dental waiting lists. This package is badly needed. The oral health of children has been declining since the mid-1990s and we know that almost 20,000 kids under the age of 10 are hospitalised each year due to avoidable dental issues. That figure is truly shocking. By age 15, six out of 10 kids have tooth decay.
Untreated decay and fillings are similar across income ranges but, if you earn more than $60,000 a year, you have on average seven more teeth than Australia's poorest—45.1 per cent of 12-year-olds had decay in their permanent teeth. Recent studies show that children in the poorest areas of the country experience 1½ times the amount of tooth decay and cavities experienced by those in the wealthiest areas. We know that the number of family members with untreated tooth decay in low-income households is more than double the number in high-income households. Let us hope that soon these statistics are a thing of the past.
Around 400,000 languish on public dental waiting lists. Millions of people go without adequate dental care. We have listened and we are acting. This plan will kick off at the end of next year, just 15 months away. The measures announced in the 2012-13 budget are already underway, which is great. Labor believe we have a responsibility to ensure that all Australians are at least able to afford to go to a dentist and, in particular, that children should be given access to government subsidised oral health care. States and territories provide dental care for children and adults. However, eligibility for these services is not the same in every state.
Dental for kids will provide access to dental services for many who are not currently entitled to access public dental services. Dental for kids also means parents can decide whether they want to take their kids to public dental clinics or to their own local dentist. It is important to note that this $4 billion package is contingent on the states and territories continuing to fund dental care at or above their current level of spending. State and territory services will continue to operate as they do now. However, the federal government will now pay for many of these services. Public dental services will not be able to charge any copayment for services funded by the Commonwealth. This in turn will allow states and territories to direct more spending to services for low-income adults, which is an area of great need. What is important to note is that this package strikes a balance between improved services for low-income cardholders and new investment in preventive dental work. The investment in children's dental care is an investment in their dental needs as adults and will ensure that the oral health of each generation is better than the last generation's.
The government has a proven track record in finding savings in budgets to deliver on our priorities and still return the budget to surplus. We found $33 billion of savings in the last budget and over $100 billion in the budgets before that. That has allowed us to deliver on our priorities in public health, paid parental leave, aged-care reform, mental health reform and the biggest pension increase in our nation's history. We have got one of the strongest economies in the developed world, with stronger growth and lower interest rates under this government's stronger economic management. But we are also managing the economy in the interests of working Australians by keeping people in jobs and delivering important reforms like this dental reform.
The Liberals said no to Medicare, they said no to national health reforms and they said no to public hospital funding, slashing billions from basic hospital care. As John Howard's health minister, the member for Warringah, the Hon. Tony Abbott, increased out-of-pocket expenses by 50 per cent, put in place a poorly targeted dental scheme that now costs Australia's $1 billion each year and froze GP training places, leaving six in 10 Australians living in suburbs and towns without enough doctors. What I want to say to those opposite is that saying no has real consequences. It risks the health of millions of Australians by increasing medical costs and closing hospitals and community health centres.
The opposition continued to support the rorted Chronic Disease Dental Scheme instead of backing fair and sensible reform of dental policy, including almost $2 billion for low-income adults and a blitz on public dental waiting lists. The Minister for Health yesterday released a statement regarding our dental plans. She pointed out that the member for Warringah's rorted dental scheme was supposed to cost $90 million a year but ended up costing $80 million a month. He introduced the scheme in the final days of the Howard government. The scheme handed millionaires more than $4,000 each but ignored children of low-income Australians who simply had bad teeth. More than 1,000 complaints were made about the scheme, including complaints about dentures that did not fit; amalgam fillings being swapped for porcelain fillings; unnecessary cosmetic work being done; and charging for work that never happened.
Labor's new investment in dental care began with a budget allocation of $515.3 million and was followed by a commitment of $4.1 billion in August. This is in stark contrast to the Liberals' track record on dental care policy. The Liberals have said no to every major health reform. But they said yes to tobacco donations, collecting more than $1.9 million in donations from big tobacco companies since 2004 and benefiting from $16 million of anti-Labor tobacco ads and political lobbying.
Only Labor has a plan to help families with the cost of living and build a stronger economy by spreading the benefits of the mining boom. Working families are worried about the cost of living—electricity, rents, school uniforms and groceries. Even a simple family outing feels like it is beyond the reach of some. That is why Labor has put in place a package of measures to help people make ends meet. This dental package is a great example of that. We have an outstanding record of significant achievement secured in the most closely divided parliament in decades. Our economy is healthy and growing; it is the envy of the world's advanced economies. We are bringing the budget into surplus. We are working with business to drive gains in productivity. We have cut taxes, delivered pension benefits, increased super, started a massive skills program, initiated new programs for disabled Australians and developed sweeping aged-care reforms. We are bringing 21st century broadband to all households and we are tackling global warming and moving to a clean energy future.
In other words, the Gillard Labor government is getting important things done, and it will continue to do so. As a government we have made choices. We stand for supporting working Australians with a package of policies that helps them get through, giving working people a fair share of the resources boom and making the hard decisions that will build a new Australian economy and get us ready for the future.
The Liberals always put vested interests ahead of the needs of the community or ahead of working Australians—on the mining tax, on increasing superannuation for workers and on making big polluters pay for their carbon emissions. They put headlines before hard work, politics before principle.
We are repairing the 10 years of waste and neglect of our health and dental system inherited from the Howard government. This is a building block that will improve the lives of many. Improving the living standards of this generation and future generations means that we are making the right decisions now. I urge all members of the House to support this legislation.
I rise to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. Sadly, this bill simply sums up the Labor government. In fact, this bill could be a metaphor for this government. Firstly, this bill is just another broken Labor promise. Secondly, this bill is nothing more than a hoodwink, a con, a deception, a pea-and-thimble trick. Thirdly, this is a bill that will cause undue pain and suffering and hardship to hundreds of thousands of Australians. This bill is just another example of why the Labor government will go down in history as the worst in our nation.
This bill just adds to the long list of broken promises by this government. It is just another example of why the Australian public simply cannot believe a single word that this government says. In a press conference back on 11 February 2011, the current Prime Minister said:
Every time we announce something we properly account for it and properly fund it.
Those are her words; the transcript is available on the Prime Minister's website. So how is the government properly funding the spending in this bill—$4 billion? Where is the money coming from? That is more than a fair question, given that we have a Prime Minister who has promised:
Every time we announce something we properly account for it and properly fund it.
In this government's haste and confusion when making an announcement on this bill—that haste and confusion that we have seen time and time again, which has been the hallmark of this government—the Minister for Health simply let the cat out of the bag. She was reported in the Age on 30 August as saying:
There is not billions of dollars in the budget for this … we need to find a new $4 billion …
So there we have, in the minister's own words, confirmation that the government are making announcements, without a clue of how they are going to properly fund them. The admission that they need to find a new $4 billion is confirmation that this bill is just another broken promise and a further erosion of trust of the Australian public.
As the minister has confirmed, we need to find a new $4 billion for this bill. There is a call going out around the nation tonight: where is the money coming from? It is not only this bill on dental health. The government needs to explain where the money is coming from for the new asylum seeker policy. Where is the money coming from to fund a National Disability Insurance Scheme? Where is the money coming from to fund the Gonski education reforms? Where is the money coming from to fund our new submarines? So far these unfunded promises add up to a massive $120 billion black hole.
If that is not bad enough, we wake up this morning and we hear another unfunded promise from the government—this time $1.4 billion a year for taxpayers to fund private childcare workers. This is simply yet another government commitment without them having a clue where the money is going to come from. This is against a background of falling commodity prices, a likely downturn in revenue and the Prime Minister hanging on to the delusion that the budget is still in surplus. No wonder even members of Labor's caucus yesterday were joining in the chorus with the other 22 million Australians: where is the money coming from?
Are the government going to raise taxes to pay for this bill? Are they going to slash more jobs in the Public Service? If they fail to do so, given their unprecedented track record of broken promises, the Australian public will see these unfunded promises, such as those in this bill, for what they are—nothing more than a hoodwink, a deception, mere empty promises, all designed for short-term political gain to fool people in the run-up to the next election. But, I suppose if this government thinks it can get away with the promise before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' it could probably get away with anything.
As I said, this bill is nothing more than a hoodwink, a con, a deception, a pea-and-thimble trick. In peddling their nonsense about this bill, one thing the speakers on the other side conveniently have forgotten to mention—the inconvenient truth about this bill—is that this unfunded dental health program will not begin until 2014, well after the next federal election. Under this bill, the means-test entitlement for children aged 12 to 17 will not commence until January 2014 and the proposal for adults does not commence until July 2014. So what we have is nothing other than an unfunded promise on the never-never, something that will not even happen, at the very best, until after the next election.
What is even more shameful is the other inconvenient truth about this bill. This government is, at the same time, announcing the closure of the existing Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. Under the government's proposals, no new patients can access this scheme after 7 September—which has already gone—and no new treatments will be done at all under the existing scheme until 30 November. So the question is: what happens between now, when the scheme is closed, and 2014? What happens to someone suffering chronic dental disease during that period? The answer is: nothing. Absolutely nothing. There is nothing that this government is putting into place between now and 2013.
We have a bill here that is really about the federal Labor government stripping away money from dental health and replacing it with nothing more than a promise, something that might happen in the future. A classic pea-and-thimble trick. We have this government coming into the parliament and creating the illusion of being concerned for dental health, when the reality is that this bill rips away the existing Chronic Disease Dental Scheme to offset the government's reckless spending and wasteful management. Why is the government ripping away this existing scheme? This was a scheme established by the Howard government to provide patients who have chronic dental disease with rebates of up to $4,250, every two years, for private dental treatment. This is an existing scheme that has provided, since 2007, approximately 20 million services to over one million Australians who have suffered from chronic dental disease.
There are two reasons this scheme is being closed down, and neither of them is legitimate. The first reason is purely political. It is based on the ideology that everything the Howard government did was wrong. This is the same ideology that has seen the disaster on border protection. The second reason, and perhaps the real reason, is to simply try to shore up a dodgy budget surplus. We have seen claims from the other side that this scheme has been widely rorted. Let us look at these numbers. The minister says that there have been 1,000 complaints of so-called rorting. Let us put that into context. This is a scheme that has provided two million courses of care. So this wide rorting is 0.05 per cent. That should be a record of success, not failure. That 0.05 per cent of supposedly wide rorting includes pursuing dentists for the most minor and inadvertent paperwork mistakes.
These cuts to our dental health, that will occur over the balance of the life of this Labor government, will cause enormous pain and suffering for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Australians. And the message this government gives to them is: 'Sorry, there's no money left. We've wasted it all. Simply take an Aspro, put up with the pain and wait for a year or two until this new scheme starts.' That is the message this government is telling tens of thousands of Australians today. Those Australians suffering with chronic dental disease are now paying the price. They are paying the price of this government's wasteful and reckless spending and failed policies. Those Australians suffering with chronic dental disease and those Australians who will suffer with chronic dental disease for the next year and a half are being forced to pay the price. They are being forced to suffer and endure pain for the disastrous schemes like the pink batts, the farcically named education revolution, the green loans debacle, the $5 billion cost of the denial and the refusal to admit the costly mistakes on border protection.
Those voting for this bill should stand up and admit that what they are voting for is going to cause pain and suffering for those with chronic dental pain and gum disease. There is also the issue of the urgent cut-off. Why the urgency to cut off the existing scheme? Twelve weeks from the announcement, the scheme was cut off altogether. The minister should explain why to the many children who must suffer and wait for another 13 months—with incomplete treatment and no certainty of what schedules are provided—or until this government gets around to supposedly coming up with some funding for this unfunded promise in 2014.
The executive officer of the Australian Dental Association drew attention to this problem. He said: 'There are a significant number of treatments that simply cannot be completed in 12 weeks.' They are 'anything from ongoing gum disease treatment, orthodontics and dentures where we have to wait for the extraction wound to heal before fitting'. The 12-week cut-off simply shows that those in government do not know what they are doing. They are either wilfully going out to cause pain and suffering or they do not know what they are doing. These people who are halfway through their treatments, and who are now left in limbo, are the ones paying for this government's waste.
I could go on and compare the two dental schemes, but what is the point? We are talking about a scheme in 2014. How can this government be trusted to deliver it when it is completely unfunded? Hans Zoellner, chairman of the Association for the Promotion of Oral Health, has pointed out one of the great weaknesses of the scheme. He said that few children needed enough dental treatment to get near the $500-a-year cap. On the one hand, it might cost a child $100 or $200 to go to a dental surgery. They do not need the $500 cap. But on the other hand, children with more serious problems are disadvantaged by this cut. Under the existing scheme they are able to go to a $4,250 limit.
And what about people with mobility issues? How will this scheme affect the disabled or nursing home patients and others with mobility issues? Under the current scheme, the one the government is getting rid of and replacing with nothing for 14 months, they are able to go to a local dentist. Now under the new scheme, which will start sometime in the never-never, they cannot go to their local dentist. They have to go to a public dentist and they will be forced to travel significant distances. So what happens to those people who have those mobility issues?
What about the capacity of our existing dental workforce? All of a sudden we will have a big reduction in demand through the cutting of this scheme. Then, when the new scheme starts, we will have an explosion in demand. We will have a built-up demand for 14 or 16 months, 19 months for adults, with no chronic dental schemes available. We will have an explosion of demand in 19 months. Simply, again, it is the government not understanding the basics of supply and demand.
This legislation deserves to be treated with complete contempt for the pain and suffering it will cause many Australians. The coalition's position is that we will be moving a disallowance motion against the closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, to protect those patients who will otherwise go without treatment for 19 months for adults and 13 months for children. That is at least; it will probably be longer than that. Those on the other side have a decision to make. You should stand up and support that disallowance motion. If you do not, you will be responsible for causing pain and suffering to tens of thousands of Australians.
For the benefit of the member for Hughes, I notice that he, like the member for Dickson, is either deliberately misrepresenting Labor's dental policy or is just proving that he really does not know what was in, and what is in, the 2012 May budget.
Mr Buchholz interjecting—
Order! The member for Wright will cease interrupting.
If you listen, you might get the information instead of just trotting ideas out that popped out in a templated answer by the member for Dickson. In the budget, we committed $515.3 million to dental spending, including $345 million specifically for taking care of adults on public dental waiting lists.
The waiting list is 400,000.
Order! The member for Hughes.
I sat and listened to you, thank you—manners. This money will be available to state and territory public dental systems from January 2013, just one month after closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. So contrary to your comments and to the member for Dickson's comments, the money is there and is available.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Thank you, but they are the facts. Read about it, cogitate, ruminate and let it sink in. Australians on a low income should be very happy about the Gillard Labor government's $4 billion dental package. I know I am, even if the member for Hughes is not. This six-year package is great for the country and great news for my electorate of Braddon—an electorate with lower than average incomes and greater difficulty in accessing affordable dental care.
Nationwide, this bill means there will be around 3.4 million Australian children who will be eligible for subsidised dental care just like they are eligible for Medicare funded visits to their GP. This will come in at a cost of around $2.7 billion. This is a lot of money but it is a much needed investment in the dental health care of our younger people. It is also a targeted and much better use of taxpayer funds than previous schemes, which tended to be uncapped and far too open-ended in terms of capacity to pay.
Under this package, our federal Labor government will also provide dental services to more than one million low-income adults and Australians in rural and remote areas, focusing especially on pensioners. Again, this will advantage my region in particular, which is rural and contains remote communities. It also has a comparatively aged population and a proportion of older citizens who rely on the pension for their main source of income. This component will cost around $1.3 billion, and the funding will be provided to the states and territories under a national partnership agreement to expand public dental services for low-income adults. This funding will depend on the states and territories to at least maintain their current level of dental care services. It is, after all, a partnership and it is, after all, an agreement. We do not want to see money skimmed or diverted by states into other areas, which is a practice all too often more the case than not.
In addition to the two components mentioned above, there is $225 million for dental capital and workforce to be provided to support expanded services for people living in outer metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may, I will take you through the design of the package and its rationale.
The design of this package is based on addressing increasingly poor oral health amongst Australians, particularly people from low- and middle-income families. The need is apparent, which is why this government is acting to tackle it as a priority. Needless to say, those opposite will do as they have done over the life of this parliament—and reinforced by the member for Hughes; surprise, surprise—and vote against it or stymie it. Investment in dental infrastructure will play a key role in supporting the new dental reform package.
Unfortunately millions of Australians do not visit the dentist because they just cannot afford to. We have heard this in our electorates, like Braddon, one after another. Members time and again have raised this matter in and out of caucus. As a government collective we have recognised the problem and we are funding solutions. We know low-income households have more than double the number of family members with untreated tooth decay compared with high-income households. I believe we have a responsibility to ensure the people who are least able to afford to go the dentist should have access to government subsidised dental care, particularly children. Indeed, prevention is the best measure to tackle potential dental health issues.
The kids' dental health package will provide access to dental services to many children who are not currently entitled to access public dental services. There is a distinct, measured need for this. Recent studies showed that children in the poorest areas of the country experience 1½ times the amount of tooth decay and cavities, unfortunately, compared to those in the wealthiest parts. Early intervention can significantly reduce the costs of treatment, limit early extractions and reduce chronic dental disease. The latter is a result of poor dental health care over time, and this aspect of the package is designed to mitigate such an eventuality. Emphasis on child dental care is the most effective use of funding rather than on poorly targeted later-term remediation treatments.
The dental scheme for kids means that parents can decide whether they want to take their kids to the public dental clinics or to their own local dentist. Importantly, it means actually accessing dental specialist care when it is needed by families who struggle to afford such services or are totally unable to.
Children aged two to 17 in family tax benefit part A-eligible families will be entitled to subsidised basic dental treatment. This is capped at $1,000 per child over a two-year period and it aims to address dental decay in children, which unfortunately has been increasing since the 1990s. In my electorate of Braddon, this package applies to around 8,300 families or 15,800 kids—that is nearly 16,000 eligible kids in my region.
Those opposite question why are we funding a range of new dental programs for low-income earners. Why should we change from the current Chronic Disease Dental Scheme introduced by the Howard government? First of all, a fact: one in five of our lowest income earners have not been to the dentist in over five years, if ever. Poor dental health has wide-ranging impacts on speech, sleep, eating and general health and wellbeing—not to mention, in extreme cases, social isolation and depression.
Around 400,000 Australians languish on public dental waiting lists, and millions of people go without adequate dental care. Improving dental health will help relieve the pressure on hospitals and the broader health system. Indeed, I think it is often forgotten just how integral dental health is in the holistic framework of an individual's health and wellbeing. I have often questioned—I am sure some of you have as well—why dental health has managed to be somehow separated from other health related issues covered under Medicare. It is as if our teeth and gums are different from other parts of our anatomy in terms of affecting health and wellbeing and being affected by 'unwellness'—if there is such a term.
I mentioned the current Chronic Disease Dental Scheme before. Why are we acting to dismantle this now? Since being elected in 2007, the government has been trying to shut down the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme and replace it with more effective policies. The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme is not means-tested, which means people with high and very high incomes can get $4,250 free dental care—not subsidised but free dental care—if they are eligible via the medical criteria applied, and this does not include the ability to pay. That is a fact. How can this be equitable or fair or in fact efficiently targeted when there is so much competition for the healthcare dollar in Australia?
It is not targeted, which means patients can get caps, crowns and other, often cosmetic, work at the taxpayers' expense. Now, nobody wishes chronic disease on anyone, but to not apply an income or ability-to-pay criterion on a treatment just does not stand the test of fairness. All the while, people who have bad oral health but no 'chronic disease' have trouble seeing a dentist at all. Added to the inequity I mentioned above, and exacerbating the issue further, is the fact that the cost of the scheme has completely and utterly blown out.
Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was health minister, said it would cost around $90 million a year; instead, it is now costing almost $1 billion each year, and it still leaves people on public dental waiting lists. The coalition scheme is clearly another example where Tony Abbott did not pay attention to the details—either that or he is not good with numbers.
On top of the cost blow-out, more than 1,000 complaints—which the member for Hughes tried to dismiss statistically—have been lodged about the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. There has also been widespread, documented misuse of the scheme. This includes some practitioners ordering dentures that did not fit, unnecessary crowns or other work and charging the full $4,250 while doing little or even no work. I note that the Minister for Human Services and his department are currently talking to the Australian Dental Association and the AMA in an effort to deal with anomalies in relation to incorrect claims made in relation to the CDDS.
In contrast to the CDDS, the federal Labor package will address the needs of the Australian community in a fiscally responsible way. We know that people in low-income households are more likely to have poorer oral health than those in high-income households. This package is targeted at people who are least able to pay to see a dentist themselves. At the same time, we will ensure spending on the scheme is sustainable and responsible.
As the new scheme gets closer, more information will be made available to parents, but in essence they will be able to make their claims through Medicare just like they currently do for GP visits. If the dentist bulk-bills for the services, parents will not be required to make any payments. For dentists that do not bulk-bill, a trip to Medicare will see the cost for the service partly reimbursed, along the previously mentioned formula.
So, what about phasing out the current Chronic Disease Dental Scheme? The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme will no longer operate after 30 November. Patients who currently have a GP management plan and team care arrangements or a multidisciplinary care plan which was put in place prior to 8 September 2012 have until 30 November to complete their treatment. Thereafter, the patient will need to pay for the treatment.
The Gillard government, like Labor governments before us, are delivering on our priorities in areas like public health, paid parental leave, aged care and so forth. As I said before, the money that we have set aside in the budget will be available to the state and territory public dental systems from January 2013.
I note that members opposite—certainly the member for Hughes and member for Dickson—continue to support the CDDS instead of backing our fair and sensible reforms of dental policy, which include almost $2 billion for low-income adults and a blitz on public dental waiting lists.
The misused, abused and blown-out CDDS was supposed to cost, as I mentioned earlier, $90 million a year but ended up costing $80 million a month. Let me repeat: $80 million a month, for a scheme that was estimated to cost $90 million a year. I believe the opposition are too proud and too stubborn to admit this has been a policy blunder, so they just ignore the evidence.
Tony Abbott introduced the scheme in the final days of the Howard government and has supported it ever since—the member for Hughes reflects that. Unfortunately, it is poorly targeted, and more than 1,000 complaints were made about the scheme. Those included complaints about dentures that did not fit and so on.
Labor's new investment in dental care began with a $515.3 million budget allocation followed by a $4.1 billion commitment in August. We will deliver on our scheme. It is funded, and it will certainly be eagerly welcomed and appreciated in my electorate.
I rise to speak on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. What this bill does is implement part of the government's $4.1 billion unfunded dental commitment. Last month, on 29 August, the Minister for Health together with the Greens health spokesperson announced this $4.1 billion unfunded dental program. It involves the closure of the extremely successful Chronic Disease Dental Scheme now and a program commencing not this year or next year but in 2014—well after the next election.
I would like to speak firstly about the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, which is being closed. The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was one of a number of measures introduced by the Howard government which showed how flexible Medicare could be and how you could expand access to Medicare. We expanded access to Medicare in the area of mental health. With a referral from a GP, people could access, on Medicare, psychologists and other allied health professionals. We did it in the area of GP care plans. Where a GP decided it was appropriate, there could be up to five allied health visits on Medicare.
And we did it, most importantly, in the area of dental health. This was very much the passion of the Leader of the Opposition. He also recognised that the important thing in dental health was not the checks but the access to restorative treatment. When you consider dental health, one of the problems with past Commonwealth schemes has been a heavy reliance on state dental services. That really ignores the significant capacity of the private sector to deliver outcomes. That is why we did it through Medicare. Many of the government speakers have said that this scheme was poorly targeted and mentioned that there were no income or assets tests. That is the Medicare system. The system is based on universal access. It is a social health insurance scheme based on universal access.
The government have announced that Chronic Disease Dental Scheme will close on 30 November. People who did not already have treatment underway by Friday, 7 September are not eligible for the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, new services stopped being provided after 7 September, and all treatments must be completed by 30 November. On 30 November, patients will have no access to treatment, and many will be unable to pay for it privately. It is extraordinary that it is the Labor Party who is ripping almost $1 billion a year out of Medicare. They often have a lot to say about the Liberal Party and Medicare, but it was no idle boast that the Liberal Party in government were the best friend Medicare had ever had.
Patients in the middle of complex treatment will be left high and dry, with semi-completed work, when the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme closes. I have already been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned that they will be unable to complete their treatments by 30 November. This will potentially have serious health consequences for these people, who will be left to languish in the lengthy queues of the state public dental systems.
The Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was introduced by the coalition government in 2007. It provided for $4,250 in Medicare dental benefits over two years for eligible patients with a chronic health condition who were referred by their GP. Since it was introduced, it has provided treatment to over one million patients and provided around 20 million individual services.
Since coming to power, Labor have continually undermined the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme for their own political reasons. They have attacked it because it was started by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing. They have attacked it because it has been successful. They have persecuted dentists for minor and inadvertent paperwork mistakes. They have claimed it has been rorted. Despite the government's cries of expenditure blow-outs, the Department of Health and Ageing has stated that the average claim per patient has been $1,716—well below the maximum limit. More recent estimates claim that this has dropped even further, to below $1,200.
The coalition has offered to work with the government to refine and improve the scheme, to look at things like caps, but these offers have been rejected and the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme has been scrapped. Eighty per cent of services under the CDDS were provided to concession card holders. These people from now on will be forced to go without treatment or to join the 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists.
The coalition supports investment in dental health and we do not oppose the intent of this bill. But we do have some legitimate concerns with the government's proposal. One of the major concerns is where the money is coming from. They made this announcement but with no idea of where they are going to find the money to actually pay for it in 2014. It has been described as a budget saving dressed up as a dental announcement because the government know their budget is in trouble.
The government's announcement leaves patients high and dry for up to 19 months while the government pockets the savings from closing the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The government's scheme will provide for a $1,000 capped benefit over two years for eligible children. The scheme will be a means tested entitlement for children aged two to 17 years who are the children of someone receiving family tax benefit A, and it will not commence until January 2015. The adult scheme will not begin until mid-2014. A part of this, $4.1 billion, is for the state governments to receive direct funding for public dental services.
The question I have got is: how does this scheme address the very real workforce issues in the public dental schemes? It is possible you could give more money to the state dental schemes but unless you have got the dentists working in the public sector you will not see those waiting lists, 650,000 people and 400,000 adults, start to come down. Very significantly, as a result of this bill and as a result of the government's determination to close the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, adults will no longer be able to access services through private dentists under Medicare. The government has removed the access for adults to receive dental services under Medicare.
The bill also does make some minor amendments to the Dental Benefits Act, changing the eligibility age for the current Medicare Teen Dental Plan from 12 to 17 years to two to 17 years of age. The schedule of services, fees and details is not yet available. The government have been very quick to introduce this bill but not so quick to tell us where the money is coming from. They are rushing this legislation through without allowing the parliament the opportunity to properly scrutinise this scheme. The question is: why the rush? The scheme does not commence for well over a year, and after the next election.
The government have acknowledged that many children will not use the $1,000 cap under this announcement. What they have not acknowledged is there will be children who are currently eligible for the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme who will require more work than the new $1,000-cap. What happens to these children? Over 60,000 services have been provided to children under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. Many of these children will be left mid-treatment when the scheme closes on 30 November. These children will then face a 13-month gap until they will be eligible for the new scheme. What do the minister and the government say to these children who will suffer 13 months with incomplete treatment between the closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme and the new scheme in 2014?
What is not clear from the announcements made by the government is how this new scheme sits with the school dental service component of the state dental schemes. There is some variability between what each state does in this area. To what extent is the Medicare scheme replicating what is already happening in the school dental services? Is this intended as a top-up scheme? In many of the areas of joint responsibility, the Commonwealth has introduced a requirement that the state governments maintain their effort. Is there any requirement for state governments to maintain their effort in the school dental services? The question is: to what extent does this replicate what is already going on? Are we going to have duplication or are we going to see state governments actually pulling back in the area of the school dental services?
The coalition is worried that patients receiving treatment under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme will now miss out on treatment during the gap between the scrapping of the CDDS this year and the 2014 commencement of the government's new dental scheme. The coalition will be moving to disallow the closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. We will do this to protect those patients who will miss out in the 19 months until Labor's scheme starts in 2014. We are committed to working with the government to refine the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, including a review of the process for providing high-cost items.
The coalition has been a great supporter of investment in dental health. But closing the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme and removing access for adults from Medicare for dental items is a retrograde decision and will have a serious impact on many Australians with chronic disease.
I rise to support the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012. I believe it is good legislation that will deliver a more equitable service throughout Australia. I will pick up on one of the points the previous speaker made about the school dental service. The states and territories will be encouraged to continue to operate as they do now. However, the federal government will now be paying for these services. So it will not be a duplication; it will be building and making sure the scheme that is in operation at the moment operates more efficiently, effectively and as a uniform scheme. I know that in my state of New South Wales the school dental scheme is all but non-existent.
The bill will extend the age range of people eligible to receive the dental service to children aged between two and 18 years. This will be replacing the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, which is for 12- to 18-year-olds and at the same time it will be rolling back and closing the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. Under the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, children will be entitled to $1,000 in treatment over a two-year period.
If I could say at the outset: this scheme is a very targeted scheme. It is targeted towards addressing the issue of dental health when it really counts—at the beginning, from the age of two, developing good dental health practices and making it affordable for families that are unable to afford dental health.
The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme has helped some people who needed help, but it has helped a lot of people who did not need help. I was talking to my own dentist recently. He was telling me how one of his patients had been referred to him for assistance under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme because they had an ingrown toenail. To my way of thinking, somebody who has an ingrown toenail is not in as great a need of dental health care as a young person whose parents cannot afford to access dental treatment. If they have poor dental hygiene, it will impact on their overall health for the whole of their life. So this is a scheme that is targeted to address dental health at its core, the time when people are developing the dental hygiene practices that will stay with them for life and ensuring that people, children, have good dental health.
In the electorate of Shortland, this change will help 16,794 children. That is 981 families that will benefit from this change. And it will be directing the services to those people who need it as opposed to some people who can actually afford to pay for their own dental health, because, currently, if you are a millionaire, and your doctor will complete the form saying you have a chronic health problem, then you can access a scheme that will deliver $4,250 worth of dental care to you over a two-year period.
This is part of the government's $4.1 billion dental reform package that was announced on 29 August this year. With the replacement of the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, that will take place on 1 January 2014. So, up until that time, we will still be targeting that teenage group. We know that the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme concludes at the end of November. As I mentioned earlier, it is poorly targeted. People were being assessed as being eligible for it when they probably should not have. I know of another case where an elderly woman of 90 was unable to access the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, even though she had a chronic illness—she had a serious heart condition and was very ill—because her doctor was reluctant to complete the forms. Finally, after a lot of advice and a lot of help from me, she managed to be deemed eligible for the program—a pensioner, somebody who needed it—to address her dental health issues. She got to see the dentist two weeks before she died.
So it is a program that was designed to help people with chronic illness, and it did help some people that should be targeted for these types of programs, but it also did help a lot of people who could afford to provide for their own dental health. It did help a lot of people who did not have chronic illnesses and it also did not help people who needed to access the service, because there was not a proper understanding of the way the system works. So it was a poorly thought-out program. When it was introduced it was deemed that it would cost $90 million per year and now it is running at $1 billion a year. So, obviously, it was not costed properly—and we know that members of the opposition do have problems with costing their documents and budgeting, because they do have a $70 billion black hole where they cannot explain where the money will be coming from. I sit here and think it is quite ludicrous when I hear questions and rhetoric coming from the other side of the House. Their financial record, ability to cost policies, lay out their programs and prove to the Australian people that they are fiscally responsible are abysmal.
This program, and this legislation we have before us, is really quality legislation—legislation that is going to help so many young people and legislation that, when combined with the other initiatives that the government has in place, will really do something about providing access to dental health services to people who cannot afford them, who are disadvantaged at the moment and who are unable to deal with their dental health issues.
I am sure most members of this House know how important it is to have good dental health, because if you do not it can affect your overall health. If you get a serious infection it can lead to hospitalisation and to problems with your heart and other organs of the body. So it is vitally important not only that people who are financially able can access dental treatment but also that people on low to middle incomes are able to see a dentist in a timely fashion.
This initiative is combined with the $5.15 million announced in the last budget that will be directed towards a blitz on the public dental health list. It is to enable people who cannot afford to go to a dentist and who do not have private health insurance, simply because they cannot afford it, to access the treatment they need. This is what the government is all about. It is about providing access to dental health services to all Australians, not just select groups.
Targeting your funding and assistance so that the most people can benefit from it is exactly what this government is doing with its dental health program. It does not surprise me to hear those on the other side are saying no and standing up for millionaires to continue receiving benefits under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. When that program was introduced it would have been much better if there had been a means testing component placed on it, but that did not happen, because those on the other side of this parliament are not the friends of people such as the pensioners and those people who look to government for assistance.
The government has been trying to shut down the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme since 2007, because we want to replace it with a more effective scheme. What we think we have here is a suite of schemes and proposals, a way of attacking dental health across the board, that will benefit everyone.
We want to tackle poor oral health head-on. Kids, particularly, in families that have lower incomes, and even some people in lower-middle-income families, do not have access to the dental treatment that they should. One of the most disturbing facts is that decay amongst children has been on the rise since 1990. There was a point, when I was younger, when most children accepted the fact that they would have to visit the dentist, and that would mean fillings and extractions. If you look at many of our older Australians you will find that dentures are commonplace, and that is just the way it was. But then we turned the corner and dental health, our children's health, started to improve. For my own children a visit to the dentist involved being told, 'You are doing a really good job with your teeth. They are perfect.' That is the change from my day and from back further. There has been a generational change. When you hear that dental decay amongst children has been rising since 1990 it says to me that we are not attacking the problem properly. So, the government has developed policies that will address the issue and ensure that those one in five children in our lowest income households, who have not been to a dentist in over five years, will be able to afford to go to the dentist.
I implore the opposition to look at this in a more holistic way. Look at it in a way where you can see the benefits it will deliver to the majority of Australians, not just a select group. The children of Australia need the opposition to support this legislation. They need them to adopt a responsible approach to dental care, and they need to acknowledge the fact that the government has put a lot more money into addressing dental health waiting lists. Those who come from states where there are coalition governments need to go back and make sure that those coalition governments do not rip money out of the dental health schemes, just as they have ripped it out of education and health.
One is almost left without words after that truly sad, pathetic, unpassionate display of class warfare. We heard the member for Shortland talk about the fact that the current scheme is there for millionaires. I think I will go back to my electorate and tell my constituents, who are upset that the treatment they are getting under the current scheme is going to be axed leaving them in the lurch, that the Labor Party in Canberra is saying they are millionaires and do not deserve any help. In fact, I think I might even make sure that the constituents in the member for Shortland's electorate know that, because I think it is only fair that they know what their member of parliament says in this place instead of going back home and pretending to empathise with her constituents who are receiving treatment under the current scheme.
What we have seen from the Labor Party with this bill, the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012, is exactly what they are doing across the board: pretending, faking concern and compassion in order to try and save this government from the most laughable claim it has made, which is that it will deliver a budget surplus. This is just a budget cut masked in the clothing of compassion. And this bill does come at a very interesting time. It comes during a week in which the Labor Party has spent its collective efforts on demonising state Liberal governments for making budget savings—those Liberal governments that took over basket-case economies from embarrassingly corrupt, morally bankrupt, long-term Labor governments, swept out of office with record results in some electorates because people had had enough. During the last two weeks, Labor members have lined up like lemmings at the doors of parliament to take cheap political pot shots at state Liberal governments. And it truly is pathetic.
What I would have liked to have seen was these same members going out on the doors when there were still Labor governments in the states in which they reside and defending the indefensible. Australians right across this nation will suffer for a long time from the wanton waste and negligence and debt that Labor governments at the state and federal levels have incurred. It is a crime: it is a crime against future generations, and it is a crime against the truly needy people in our society who are suffering because this government is being tricky with the truth and slippery with its funding of programs and its freezing of this program and that program and putting off funding beyond the next election. How stupid do they really think journalists are, not to pick this up? How stupid do they really think the Australian public is, not to see through this slippery, slimy, record spin-doctoring from the Labor Party?
Before going into detail, let us look at what this bill is fundamentally about. To borrow a phrase from the minister for families, this bill represents a $1.5 billion claw-back from Australia's health budget. Let us be very clear about that because, according to the minister, this bill is a savings measure; there is no doubt or ambiguity about that. And it is not just the health minister who claims that this policy is a savings measure; indeed, the Prime Minister herself boasts about it being a cutback as well. When asked at a recent press conference whether it was irresponsible to make a large promise without yet identifying where the funds will come from, the Prime Minister said this:
Well the announcement today is about a large saving. That is through the closure of a scheme designed by the former Government, by the Howard Government.
'The announcement today is about a large saving'—those were the words of the Prime Minister. No amount of weaselling and squirming and tricky double-speak will hide the fact that there is a cut in funding and services to the Australian people in terms of dental care.
We all recall the previous health minister, the member for Gellibrand, screeching untruths about the Leader of the Opposition cutting health funding during his tenure as health minister. Obviously her statements were untrue, but her central argument was that cutting money from the health system was morally wrong. So I do look forward to hearing the member for Gellibrand's contribution to this debate. I wonder whether she still holds the same hardline views about budget cuts in the health portfolio? I suspect not, because it is her own party that is engaging in this behaviour—and far be it from the member for Gellibrand to be consistent and apply consistent standards to both sides of the parliament! We know there is great hypocrisy and there are double standards when it comes to these issues from the member for Gellibrand and so many on the other side.
I also wonder whether those same Labor members who have made cheap political attacks on state Liberal governments in recent days will come out with the same spirited attacks on these cutbacks. I suspect that they will not, because, as far as those opposite are concerned, it is all very simple: Liberal cuts are bad; Labor cuts are good. It is like something out of George Orwell's 1984. And, according to those opposite, Liberal savings are 'savage cutbacks', but Labor cutbacks are 'responsible savings'. Well, let us be clear about one thing. The only reason Labor is pursuing cutbacks across portfolios, across dental care, is that it has wasted tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and borrowed funds—poured them down the drain—to fund its ill-conceived, poorly executed policies. Whether it is free fluff in roofs, the outrageously expensive school halls, the redundant computers in schools—
Order! Before the member for Indi sits down, I require her to withdraw her reference to 'corrupt' state governments in the body of her speech. I did not pull her up at the time—she was in full flight—but I do ask her now to withdraw the allegation of corrupt state governments.
I will withdraw what everyone knows was—
No, you will do it unreservedly.
I withdraw.
Debate interrupted.
I have spoken numerous times in this House regarding the serious concerns that many in my electorate of Paterson have regarding the delivery of digital television access. Never has so little been done by so many at such expense to the taxpayer with so little outcome. This Labor government has spent millions upon millions of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on countless glossy brochures and radio, newspaper and television adverts telling everyone to get digital ready. So we have had the spectre of many of my constituents buying digital televisions which they were not able to use, because most transmitters in my electorate of Paterson did not offer a digital signal or had very poor digital reception to say the least.
This Labor government promised through the Household Assistance Scheme that those on a pension, older Australians, veterans and people with disabilities or their carers would receive, according to the digital ready website, a high-definition set-top box, a demonstration of the new equipment and instructions on how to use it and a 12-month warranty, service and technical support. This was all at a cost to the taxpayer nearly double what Gerry Harvey said he could do the same job for. It has been more mismanagement and wasteful spending by an inept government.
This is a very serious matter. We are facing total digital conversion in Paterson by the end of November this year and many of those who were promised support through the Household Assistance Scheme have not heard anything from anyone, despite constant requests. Mrs Baker from Stroud relies on the analog self-help tower in Stroud. The Stroud tower was due to change to a digital signal in August, but that change has been put back to October. I have many elderly constituents living in Stroud who are entitled to the Household Assistance Scheme, but if the contractors do not install the relevant equipment in the next two weeks they will not have access to any television at all.
Mrs Sternbeck lives in Booral. Because the government through Regional Broadcasting Australia has decided not to upgrade the Booral tower to digital, its residents should be entitled to the Satellite Subsidy Scheme, which would give them access to Viewer Access Satellite Television, or VAST. However, when Booral residents contacted the Digital Ready hotline and the Department of Human Services, no-one there seemed to know when the existing analog tower would be switched off and their service delivered by satellite. More ineptitude!
The Duffys in Corlette are a stone's throw away from an existing tower at Gan Gan. However, as they are in the shadow of a hill they cannot receive reception from that digital tower and have to rely on the analog signal form the main Hunter transmitter at Mt Sugarloaf. They have been told that the analog signal from the Mt Sugarloaf transmitter will be switched off on 27 November and that the digital signal will not have the same footprint. Like the residents of Stroud, if the contractors from the Household Assistance Scheme do not visit their homes and install the digital set-top box by then they will be denied access to television reception.
This is a major issue throughout my electorate of Paterson. We know this government is good at making promises on infrastructure and other services. Remember the NBN, anyone? However, at least while people wait for the NBN—and that wait keeps getting longer and longer—they can still rely on existing internet services where they are available. If the government fails to contact soon those of my constituents who have been promised government assistance with the digital switchover, many are going to be denied access to TV.
The coalition has always said that the government should rethink its proposals to deliver digital television. I personally warned that it would have been better to spend the millions wasted on marketing the digital switchover; on investing in upgrading more, if not all, of the analog towers to digital in order to deliver the decent terrestrial TV service that the community quite rightly expects and deserves.
Labor continually talks a good game about looking after the less fortunate in our society—the elderly, the disabled, the lowest income earners, the battlers. However, it is its financial mismanagement and policy failures that affect those in the community who are most in need of our support. In particular, it affects those on a part pension or on as little as $30 less than the full annual pension, many of whom have now been left struggling to pay the costs of upgrading and have been offered no financial assistance by the government. It is these Australians whose major source of entertainment and news the government is now threatening to deny.
This is simply unacceptable. My constituents and I will not stand for it. We want our television signal, we want it now and we want it delivered properly and affordably through measures that should have been in place from day one. We do not want spending on glossy brochures and TV and radio ads promoting a digital ready program that is not working.
Last weekend I was very proud to host a Big Aussie Barbie in my electorate of Hindmarsh in support of the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia and to raise funds for the foundation. The Big Aussie Barbie is all about starting a discussion among blokes about a significant health issue for all us men, prostate cancer, and we must make sure men are hearing the message.
Our barbie on the weekend was a great gathering. I was honoured to have in attendance members of the public who turned up to have a snag, a bit of onion and some sauce on a bit of bread and throw a gold coin into the tin. Some very good mates attended, including the South Australian minister for communities and social inclusion, social housing, disabilities, youth and volunteers, the Hon. Ian Hunter, and councillors from the councils in my area, West Torrens, Holdfast Bay and Charles Sturt. We were also very lucky to have a special guest speaker, David Merry, who attended with the state manager of the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Karyn Foster. David is a survivor of prostate cancer and not only gave a great account of the statistics but is a great example that men in their 40s and older should be checked regularly for prostate cancer.
We raised several hundred dollars for the foundation through donations and I am very pleased that tomorrow I will be hosting another barbecue here at Parliament House to raise funds. This will be a great bipartisan event and I am delighted that some of my colleagues will be joining us. Those of you who have not RSVP'd, I urge you all to come along. The Hon. Peter Dutton from the opposition will be attending, and Catherine King, Warren Snowdon, Richard Di Natale and many other members of parliament will be there.
The barbecue here at parliament is always very successful. Every year it is a big event. Of course, the reason all of this is happening is that September is International Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Around the nation, blokes and their friends and families have been firing up the barbecue in support of the cause and to get the message out there, which is: check your prostate on a regular basis. Early detection means that the likelihood of survival is far greater.
This campaign is easy for people to get involved with because it centres around one of our great Aussie icons—that is, 'the barbie'. It celebrates the good things about this country—the weather, the food and the people. It seems only natural to us that it can also help us to raise money and awareness for prostate health. These barbecues will be hosted by people who want to share the importance of prostate cancer awareness all around the country. Indeed, there are fewer things that Australian men need to become better aware of and here are a just a few sobering reasons why Australian men and their families need to be talking about prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer is a significant health problem and due to our ageing population it is likely to become the leading cause of death from cancer in men in the future. Prostate cancer is still the most common cancer in Australian men and more than ever we are seeing the impact it has in our community. The chance of developing prostate cancer increases as men get older and, if there is a family history of prostate cancer, again the chances are high. Approximately 20,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year. One in nine Australian men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime. Every day around 32 men learn the news that they have prostate cancer and tragically one man will lose his battle with this disease every three hours.
Thanks to Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, we are now aware of the major impact this disease has. The PCFA is dedicated to reducing the impact of prostate cancer on Australian men. Their great work includes promoting and funding world-leading, innovative research into prostate cancer; implementing awareness campaigns and education programs; and, supporting men and their families affected by prostate cancer through evidence based information and resources, support groups and providing world-class prostate cancer nurses to men requiring specialist care.
I encourage all members in this House today to get in touch with the PCFA and your local support groups and get your electorate involved in this important campaign. Your neighbourhood community groups, clubs, family and friends can help spread the message so that many losses in families around our nation can potentially be avoided through men talking about prostate cancer, spreading the word and getting checked just to be safe.
We are making great progress but more work still needs to be done to help prevent and manage the impact of prostate cancer in the community. Initiatives like the Big Aussie Barbie campaign help to bring a serious issue like prostate cancer to the fore and to get the message out there. I encourage all of you to come tomorrow to hear what will be said by the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia and just have some fun, while raising funds for the PCFA. I hope to see you all there tomorrow.
I recently had the opportunity to visit the Queensland research laboratory of Australia's largest information and communications technology research and development organisation, NICTA. NICTA is a not-for-profit company which began in 2003, with laboratories in New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and Queensland. Most of the funding for NICTA is provided by the federal government, with each participating state and territory providing additional funding to support NICTA's presence locally.
NICTA's Queensland research laboratory was established in 2005. The laboratory is based at the University of Queensland in the Ryan electorate but draws on the capabilities of researchers at University of Queensland, Queensland University of Technology and Griffith University. The laboratory is funded primarily by the Queensland government with contributions matched from the Queensland partner universities and Commonwealth funding through NICTA.
My tour of NICTA's Queensland laboratory was initiated by University of Queensland academic and NICTA's Advanced Surveillance project leader, Professor Brian Lovell. Professor Lovell and his team recently won the prestigious ICT Research and Development prize for their face recognition technology, which improves the speed and accuracy of identifying faces for law enforcement, at the Asia-Pacific ICT Alliance Awards in Thailand. Working in collaboration with the Queensland government, the team created NICTA's Face Search Engine, which aims to improve face recognition in grainy, low-quality video footage. The search engine has the potential to save precious time in police investigations where CCTV footage is usually reviewed manually.
While facial biometric recognition is already used in Australia to verify the identity of someone when checked against a passport photo taken under finely controlled and cooperative conditions, NICTA's technology can identify 'persons of interest' using CCTV footage of a crowd. Professor Lovell told me that during a trial, the technology successfully pinpointed 11 out of a total 12 persons of interest in airport footage monitoring arrivals off seven jets.
The technology has already been installed in one Asia-Pacific country to manage border control and is also the foundation for a free iPhone app launched late last year that allows people to use their phones to photo and identify up to 50 people, or indeed their pets if they prefer.
Research and development in the information and communications technology field plays an important role in solving Australia's economic and social challenges, and is crucial to the growth and development of industry. In addition to their face search technology, NICTA's Queensland research laboratory is developing technology for use in infrastructure and transport systems to improve cost efficiency and productivity, as well as developing advanced networking and sensing systems for use in agriculture. The researchers are also developing new air traffic management systems which have the potential to revolutionise how air traffic is controlled, allowing for greatly increased flight densities without compromising on safety. NICTA's research in business process compliance ensures that the core activities of a business are aligned with relevant laws, regulations and guidelines. This important work is particularly relevant to governments that are looking to cut government red tape by decreasing regulatory burdens on business.
At a national level, NICTA is developing a range of innovative technologies as well as providing tools to government and industry which reduce regulatory burdens and costs but at the same time improve productivity. NICTA tells me that the economic impact of this work has been independently estimated at some billions of dollars every year.
This is groundbreaking research which is being undertaken in our own country, but sadly we will not be able to stay ahead of the field if governments both state and federal do not commit to providing adequate research and development funding. Great ideas are never enough. We must be prepared to invest in our Australian researchers so they can develop their work from the research stage all the way through to the development and commercialisation phase.
I would like to thank Professor Lovell; Professor Simon Kaplan, the Director of the Queensland Research Laboratory; and NICTA's Liz Jakubowski and Rob Fitzpatrick for taking the time to meet with me and discuss the leading-edge research taking place at NICTA's Queensland Research Laboratory. I must also congratulate Professor Lovell and the Advanced Surveillance Project team on their outstanding success at the Asia-Pacific ICT Alliance Awards. I implore this government as well as the Queensland government to continue and even increase their support for the future development of this extraordinary research.
I usually stay out of state matters and instead focus on delivering benefits from federal policies to Newcastle. But after a year and a half in power the local NSW Liberal MPs need to be held to account. In Saturday's Newcastle Herald article 'Chocks away for first blocks of destroyer', New South Wales Liberal member for Newcastle, Tim Owen, had the audacity to comment on the progress of the Forgacs air warfare destroyer contract. This contract, worth almost $300 million locally, was awarded to a consortium that included Forgacs by the federal Labor government when Greg Combet, now Minister for Industry and Innovation, was the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement. This followed years of lobbying the Defence Materiel Organisation with my local manufacturers to convince them of the capacity of regional Australia to undertake defence contracts.
Currently Newcastle manufacturers are delivering almost half a billion dollars of federal government defence contracts, creating long-term employment and training opportunities for hundreds of Novocastrians. Our federal Labor government also funded the ME program in Newcastle—a program that encourages secondary students to consider careers in engineering and manufacturing and forges partnership between industry, schools and training organisations. We have also granted the University of Newcastle's well-known Science and Engineering Challenge program over $2.4 million since 2007.
It is the decisions and the funding of the federal Labor government, not Tim Owen or the New South Wales Liberal government, that are keeping Hunter manufacturing strong. Some of the Forgacs work is being carried out at the former ADI site at Carrington. The use of that excellent facility has been assisted by the New South Wales Liberal government, but that commitment was gained by the previous New South Wales Labor member for Newcastle. The other political reality is that the ADI site is only there because it was built when a previous federal Labor government awarded the Huon Class minehunter contract to ADI Newcastle. That contract was followed by the awarding to ADI of the watercraft contract, also carried out at their Newcastle site under a previous federal Labor government. The former ADI site has returned to full use because federal Labor returned to government and, once more, awarded significant Defence contracts that benefit Newcastle manufacturers and shipbuilders.
In contrast, Tim Owens's New South Wales Liberal government last week made cuts to the group training scheme and subsidies for apprentices, making it harder for local manufacturers to train the workers they need; and his Liberal state government axed the previous New South Wales Labor government's $20,000 annual funding to the Founders Forum—a home-grown venture capital organisation set up to assist our local innovators to finance the production and implementation of their clever ideas. They did retain a Defence manufacturing coordination position auspiced by HunterNet—but again you can thank the previous New South Wales Labor government for that initiative. So before Tim Owen makes further comment on manufacturing in Newcastle he might actually list just what he has delivered.
Tim Owen also commented, in an article entitled 'Hunter electric storm' in Saturday's Herald, on the recent Hunter Valley Electric Vehicle Festival, which was staged by Newcastle University's Tom Farrell Institute with the assistance of a grant of $20,000 from the federal Labor government. Amazingly Tim Owen pointed to the need to diversify our economy—exactly why the federal Labor government has invested $200 million into clean energy research and innovation in Newcastle and $65 million into two world-class research institutes—the Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources and the Hunter Medical Research Institute. With health and education being our biggest employers, Tim Owen and his local state Liberal colleagues should be ashamed that these are the areas being savagely cut right now by the O'Farrell government, delivering a significant loss of jobs and services for Novocastrians.
If Tim Owen wants to know more about the nature of our local economy, he could take advantage of the information collated by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation, a leader in informing the diversification of our economy—the very same organisation that his New South Wales Liberal government cut to the tune of $150,000 per annum in their last budget.
So I say to Tim Owen: it is time that every action and inaction by his New South Wales Liberal government was measured against the cost and benefit to Newcastle. With just over two years to go before the next New South Wales election, the ledger is out of balance, with too much on the cost side and very little on the benefit side. Instead of commenting on every activity as though he were personally responsible, it is time Tim Owen started representing the people and interests of Newcastle in the state parliament.
Regional Express Airlines celebrated a tremendous milestone in aviation the weekend before last. The company commemorated its first 10 years with an open day and a gala dinner in its home base of Wagga Wagga. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Nationals were there to mark this auspicious occasion. REX Airlines was born in troubled times. Just three days after those terrible events of 9-11, Air New Zealand, owner of Ansett Australia, could no longer support the haemorrhaging of funds at Ansett and grounded the airline. Ansett was placed into voluntary administration with PricewaterhouseCoopers. With the stroke of a pen, 16,000 jobs were lost and many more placed in jeopardy.
Hazelton and Kendell Airlines, traditional solid country carriers, were caught up in the maelstrom and, through no fault of their own, went under too. But there were those who believed; there were those who tried to resurrect what they could from the collapse. The former member for Riverina, Kay Hull, was one of them. She saw what a disaster it was for a city the size of Wagga Wagga not to have capital city air services, and she acted.
The then Deputy Prime Minister, Nationals Leader and Minister for Transport and Regional Development, John Anderson, listened and responded. He came to Wagga Wagga and advised a worried group of Kendell staff members that they would get their entitlements. To this, a heavily pregnant Amanda Myers—whose husband, Jason, was a pilot with Kendell and, happily, still is a pilot with REX—called out: 'We don't want our entitlements. Put our money into getting our airline into the sky again!' Gravely ill Don Kendell was at that meeting. It would have broken his heart to see the airline he built on a wing and a prayer fail in his dying days. Don was promised that the region's air services, to which he dedicated his life, would be rescued, and thankfully that has happened.
Singaporean investor Lim Kim Hai was generous enough to put up his money and Rex took to the air on 2 August 2002, with 21 Saab 340 aircraft and seven Metroliner 23 aircraft. Kim Hai and Lee Thian Soo were the two largest founding shareholders. They initially intended being passive investors, but Rex became something of a passion for them. They saw the commitment of the staff, the dedication of the people who strove to make the airline succeed, and they reinvested heavily when Rex lost $30 million in its first financial year.
Lim and Lee then took up the challenge of running an airline, even though they had no experience in this field.
They flew in for a week every month to oversee all aspects of the operations and they dug deep to help keep Rex flying. The recovery was, as the recently published, beautifully presented hard-bound book detailing Rex's first decade recounts, 'slow and painful' but, at the end of the first year under their leadership, the company made a profit of $1 million. Since then Rex has made a profit each and every year and, in its 10th anniversary year, the Rex Group made more than $35 million profit before tax, with accumulated PBT of more than $213 million under their stewardship.
At the end of the first 10 years Rex now has 35 ports in its network, 51 Saab 340 aircraft, 95 aircraft in the Rex Group and 1,059 staff members. Pilots have spent 60,000 hours in the simulator and there have been 575,756 take-offs and landings—that is a lot of hostess safety instructions—with 11,300,250 passengers. All up, Rex planes have flown 196,675,217 kilometres, equivalent to 255 trips to the moon and back, and have used 327,953,572 litres of fuel.
I am pleased to report that it was announced just yesterday that Rex has been ranked the best domestic airline for customer satisfaction for the month of July 2012 in the Roy Morgan Customer Satisfaction Awards. Rex received an 88 per cent satisfaction rating in the surveys conducted by Roy Morgan, one of Australia's leading research companies.
I congratulate all involved in Rex and particularly some of those key figures, who, as well as those mentioned, have helped make the company what it is today: Director Jim Davis; General Manager Engineering, Dale Hall; Executive Director, Chris Hine; General Manager Network Strategy and Sales, Warrick Lodge; 'Jack of all Trades' Warren O'Halloran, whose combined years with Rex and Kendell total more than 40 years; Deputy Chairman John Sharp; and Rex Chief Operating Officer, Garry Filmer.
Rex is also training pilots of the future at its state-of-the-art Australian Airline Pilot Academy in the aptly named Don Kendell Drive at Wagga Wagga Airport.
Aviation is a volatile industry. I am confident, however, that Rex, with committed owners, diligent flight crew and ground staff and the spirit of Don Kendell and Max Flazelton in its wings, will have clear runways and blue skies for many more years to come.
I welcome the decision of the federal Labor government to legislate to ban gag clauses in Commonwealth contracts for the not-for-profit sector. Disgracefully, the previous coalition government attacked the rights and legitimate role of the not-for-profit sector and diminished its capacity to represent and advocate for its members by imposing a gag clause. In 2008 this federal Labor government removed the gag clauses imposed by the Howard coalition government that restricted the sector from engaging in policy and political debate.
Why do we need to legislate this change? Why do we need to pass federal law? We need to pass federal law because the Campbell Newman government in Queensland, not content with cutbacks of $380 million in an assault on vital community services, not content with taking away funding of $259.7 million over four years for projects and services, is actually imposing a gag order on community services so that these vital not-for-profit agencies cannot defend themselves and advocate for the causes in which they believe and the people whom they represent.
In fact, last week we had to step in to provide an additional $200,000 to the Queensland Working Women's Service to stay afloat after the Campbell Newman government cut its funding. I read today some comments made by a spokeswoman for Lawrence Springborg, Minister for Health in Queensland. This is how she justified what the state government is doing. This is what she said in relation to health funding deals and the gag clause:
If an organisation's existence is based on a majority of funding from Queensland Health, then we [the LNP state government] would expect that organisation to conduct itself with the political impartiality of any other government sector, given it is majority funded by the taxpayer …
What bullyboy tactics! How repugnant is that? How fearful are they of free speech? Indeed, it smacks of censorship and authoritarianism. The inappropriately named Liberal National Party government in Queensland are most illiberal when it comes to this matter.
I had a look at what these clauses say and do. The Queensland clauses are very broad in scope. They prohibit even indirect advocacy, in terms of references to other sites. They prohibit organisations from speaking about federal, as well as state, political matters. In fact, they are trying to protect us, but we on this side of the chamber in the federal government do not need protection in relation to this. The clauses also include an infringement on the freedom of political communication guaranteed under the Constitution and decided by the High Court of Australia. This is absolutely extraordinary. Not even the regime of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in the dark days of the National Party, when several cabinet ministers went to jail, engaged in this type of reprehensible behaviour. It really is an extraordinary attack on free speech in my home state of Queensland. It smacks of censorship. It has all the trademarks of the kind of slash-and-burn coalition government that we are witnessing and that is being foisted on the people of Queensland.
In contrast, the federal Labor government have committed $3 billion to meet our share of the costs of Fair Work Australia's decision to raise the wages and entitlements of 150,000 of some of Australia's lowest paid workers in the social and community services sector. That has not been done by those opposite. What a contrast. We developed the first ever national compact between the government and the community sector, but we have seen an across-the-board impact from Campbell Newman's ruthless cuts.
Community services in my area are at risk. Organisations like Cerebral Palsy League, Lifeline, Legacy Club of Ipswich, SeniorNet Ipswich, Lowood and District Community Centre, Rosewood Community Centre, Leichardt Community Centre, Somerset Regional Council, Quest Care, Mission Australia, the Salvation Army and Relationships Australia, Ipswich—all are at risk because of what the Campbell Newman government has done in Queensland.
This is ominous stuff. This is the kind of censorship we see in Third World dictatorships and it is being foisted upon the Queensland public and the Queensland not-for-profit sector. So we have seen a number of voices today: Catholic Social Services Australia, Uniting Church Care and other organisations speaking out on behalf of Queenslanders. It is time those opposite did as well.
I rise tonight to express my concern about and to condemn the violent protests in Sydney's CBD last weekend. To see young children holding up signs calling for the beheading of people and to see attacks against our police force is completely unacceptable in our democracy, for any reason. I am also greatly concerned of the reports last week that a Sydney sheikh has been charged with two accounts of accessory after the fact for the crime of female genital mutilation.
This follows the arrest of three people who were charged over an allegation of genital mutilation of two young Australian girls aged just six and seven. This is not an isolated case. The Medical Journal of Australia has recently reported that the Melbourne women's hospital alone is reporting between 600 to 700 young Australian women annually who have been victims of the barbaric and criminal practice of genital mutilation.
I am also greatly concerned about recent court findings that terrorists have planned to attack the Holsworthy army base to commit mass murder. Combined, these represent a failure of our nation's immigration policies and give us cause to think about what type of Australia we want to leave for our children and grandchildren. John Howard was right when he said, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' We will reap what we say. A letter published in today's Sydney Morning Herald, written by Lloyd Brand of Belmore, sums up the thoughts of many. He writes:
I am a Muslim. I was mortified at the rabble who turned up at the protest last Saturday. If these people wish to follow their extreme view of Islam, I suggest they move to countries where these views are enforced, and let's see how they fare. I do not think they would last too long once the freedoms they enjoy in this country are stripped from them.
Perhaps we need to look at our policies. Our policies of migration have made us the great nation we are today, but perhaps now is the time to review our Australian statements of values that all migrants are required to sign. Religious extremists espousing violence are completely contrary to our Australian way of life, and female genital mutilation is not a multicultural practice; it is a barbaric crime. I congratulate Smaier Dandan of the Lebanese Muslim Association for his thoughtful comments. He said that his community values religious freedom in Australia, he rejects calls for extremism and he calls for no further rallies take place.
If we are to avoid radicalisation of migrants we need to make sure we are building an inclusive society. We need to ensure that our migrants in Australia enjoy the same economic opportunities as the migrants who came to Australia in the fifties, sixties and early seventies. And we need to consider how the current settings of our Trade Practices Act are working to deny economic opportunities to migrants. Consider the report in 1999 by the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. It said:
Over the past twenty years or so, Australia has seen the demise of hundreds of small grocery stores, butchers, bakers, florists, greengrocers, pharmacists, newsagents, liquor outlets and other small retailers as a direct result of the continuous expansion of major supermarket chains and major speciality retailers, often subsidiaries of the same conglomerate.
Thus, the market is heavily concentrated and oligopolistic in nature, where a small number of major—
powers—
have a significant degree of economic influence or market power. This has placed significant pressures on small and independent retailers …
Not only is economic survival at stake, but so too the health and well-being of many small retailers, brought about by longer working hours and stressful dealings with the ‘big end of town’.
If we continue to have policies that protect our grocery duopoly from competition—ones that give them special privileges and rights and thereby deny today's economic migrants the same economic opportunity to open their small businesses as generations of migrants had in the past—we will reap what we sow.
I rise tonight to recognise some special students at a special school, the Fountain Gate Secondary College. On Tuesday, 28 August 2012 I was proud to present Principal Vicki Walters from Fountain Gate Secondary College with a 2012 Anzac Day Schools' Award when I attended their year 7 and year 8 school assembly.
Fountain Gate Secondary College is this year's Victorian state runner-up in the secondary school category and, as a result, the school received a winning plaque, a certificate and a cheque for $500 from the Australian government. The 2012 Anzac Day Schools' Awards is an exciting competition, run by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, that encourages students to learn about Anzac Day. By researching Australia's wartime history and peacekeeping operations students learn why veterans are commemorated on this very special day.
I understand that Fountain Gate Secondary College's entry comprised a beautifully presented folder of photographs documenting the school's Anzac Day ceremony and works from the students that were both spoken and musical. These were based on different themes relating to Anzac Day as well as the school's involvement with the Korean Veterans' Association. This entry demonstrated a strong understanding of the Anzac spirit and it is great to see students involving the veterans community to commemorate Anzac Day.
Like many schools across Australia and in my electorate of Holt, Fountain Gate Secondary College commemorates Anzac Day, in an event that I can proudly say I have attended for at least 10 or 11 years. The Anzac Day ceremony held at Fountain Gate Secondary College is an event which really stands out in my mind for a variety of reasons and is an event which makes this school truly unique. Each year the students come together in the school's gymnasium to observe and participate in the ceremony and, obviously, for a minute's silence. They tell stories of things like the Lone Pine and give gifts to visiting dignitaries.
What makes this school and this service so unique is their very deep bond with the Korean Veterans Association and their innate understanding of the sacrifices made by our service men and women. The Anzac Day service goes for well over an hour and, when you see a group of young students who can sit attentively for that period of time, it says a lot about the students. They are imbibing the history of Anzac Day and they are imbibing the sacrifices made by our service men and women. They are also representing it in very emotional ways, which means that they get the connection and the significance of the day itself.
It is significant in the school that they have a memorial for the Korean War veterans on the school grounds. They were presented with a Lone Pine by me in a specific ceremony a number of years ago, which commemorated the Battle of Lone Pine. I checked recently and the plant is thriving, which is a testament to the school.
The work of Principal Vicki Walters, teacher Belinda Irving and the students who were involved in this year's Anzac Day was outstanding. I congratulate the school in fostering a relationship with the Korean War veterans, particularly Mr Vic Dey, the National President of the Korean Veterans Association of Australia. I know that Vic feels very passionate about the connection with the school. He feels very passionate about the fact that he is able to participate in this service and tell the stories, as I said at the start of this speech, to a very attentive group of over 1,000 students.
The school has also been performing extraordinarily well in other areas. For example, this year it had two aerobics teams that participated on Saturday, 18 August, in Sydney. One of the aerobics teams won the national school championships. The secondary team, which is the XLR8 team, was presented with the silver medal. It was an amazing weekend of activities and the students did incredibly well.
They are a school who are very passionate about what they do. The motto of the school is 'Respect, honesty and responsibility'. In reflecting what the previous speaker said, this school is a very multicultural school with a lot of people coming from all different parts of the world to make this country their home. They do it very proudly. The Anzac Day ceremony is one of the best ceremonies that I attend year after year, and I commend the school's principal.
I wish to share with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House my travels during the past sitting fortnight and the one we are currently in, which took me to North Queensland and Central Victoria, as well as to quite an extensive range of consultations, meetings and visits in my electorate in the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula area. There was an interesting response that the small business community in that vast area had to the coalition's very positive plan to partner with the small business community to restore small business hope, reward and opportunity at a time when they feel they are under siege. They look to Canberra and see what the Gillard Labor government are doing. They are not sure what the Gillard Labor government are doing, but they certainly know they are not doing things to help the small business community.
When I was able to outline that the coalition's commitment involves the abolition of the carbon tax; $1 billion of red-tape reduction; a root-and-branch review of the competition framework, which my colleague earlier touched on; an ombudsman with genuine teeth to support small business and family enterprises; small-business-friendly procurement and contracting at a Commonwealth level; protection from the organised and coordinated attack on independent contractors and the self-employed; a voice for small business on key economic and regulatory bodies; and a minister in cabinet whose primary role is to nurture and create a more positive environment for the small business community rather than having the title tacked onto some other roles, they were genuinely encouraged. They felt that they had a political movement, the coalition, genuinely committed to the success of small business people which recognised the sacrifice, the courage and the commitment that is shown by small business men and women to not only create opportunities for themselves—something we should all reward, encourage and celebrate—but also create opportunities for others and their communities.
This parliament seems to forget that half of all the private sector workforce in Australia works for small business people. Yet all you hear about from this Labor Gillard government is big business, talking to big unions, a big government talking about what is good for them and ignoring where all the real energy, the drive and the entrepreneurship, which has been so crucial to our economy, our livelihood and our wellbeing, comes from. That is the small business men and women right across our continent.
The carbon tax is particularly concerning for the small business community. They know that they will be hit with a direct energy cost impact. For some that has not landed yet. A number may have received their first monthly bill, but those who are billed quarterly know it is coming. They know it is coming and their suppliers are telling them that it is coming. The suppliers are telling them that it is in addition to the direct carbon tax impact on the operating expenses of that small business, whether it be their electricity or their gas. The refrigerant costs have just gone through the roof for refrigerant gas if you happen to have a leak or need to recharge your refrigeration or freezer system. They know there is also the input and the supply chain carbon tax impacts that are still on their way.
So, when you hear the Gillard Labor government say, 'The carbon tax came in on 1 July and, look, not much has happened,' well, that is not true. Plenty has happened. I point out to the Labor members in this chamber that 1 July was the carbon tax's least worst day. It is like the kind of day when someone thought that putting a cane toad in Queensland was a good idea to support the cane industry. Its best day was its first day because every day after that the harm and the hardship that that decision caused compounded and built to a point where there is now Kick a Cane Toad Day in much of Northern Australia, just as for many in the small business community they want every day to be Kick a Carbon Tax Day.
In this House we have asked question after question. I have asked some questions. I have pointed to a food processor and seafood retailer in Victoria, G&E Pitliangas Food Services, who have had an 83 per cent direct increase through the carbon tax on their off-peak energy bill. For these businesses that operate around the clock there is an enormous impact in that off-peak period, when their energy cost is less. If you have structured yourself—as have the engineering companies that I have met with—to make use of that cheaper energy, you are actually hit harder, because the carbon tax does not discern between off-peak and peak users.
We have seen questions from apartment operators, newsagency businesses and food processors—the list goes on—asking the government to turn its mind to the direct impact of the carbon tax on small business. All we have had is denigration, ridiculing the very concerns of these committed and, I think, very praiseworthy Australians who have shown courage to create opportunities for themselves and others.
The carbon tax is affecting their livelihoods and their profitability. They do not have the market power to push back on the impact. They cannot pass the costs through, as example after example has shown, but the Gillard Labor government do not care. That is what small business knows: Labor does not care about their needs.
Tonight I rise to talk about the National Broadband Network, which is an important national piece of infrastructure, and a great nation-building plan. We know the effect it will have in education, health, business and on people's leisure. There are plenty of people out there who download movies and play Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and other games.
Tell me you're not building an NBN for that.
No, no, but it is important, along with business, health and education.
It's important?—World of Warcraft!
It is. Are you saying that leisure is not important?
Order! The member for Wakefield has the call and will ignore the member for Fadden.
You would be amazed. The creative industries are now bigger than movies. Entertainment—games and other things—is now bigger than movies.
We know that these are all important reasons for people to have access to high-speed broadband. And that is particularly so in Northern Adelaide, which has traditionally had very bad access to broadband, because when many of these suburbs were expanded there was a pair gain used on nearly all of the exchanges. I happen to live in one of these suburbs, Burton, and know the frustration that people suffered when they wanted to get access to broadband and were stuck on dial-up and other things.
We have just seen Telstra—rather fortunately, after quite some time—undertake to fix this matter in Blakeview, Davoren Park and Craigmore. They will now be able to provide ADSL2+. So there are some small measures that have been going on in the meantime, by Telstra, but it has been a very frustrating time, indeed.
If you look at the electorate of Wakefield at a glance, in terms of the National Broadband Network some 40,900 homes will be connected—if you include Salisbury North, which is currently in the electorate but sadly being moved out as a result of a redistribution, and Nuriootpa, which has 3,800 homes, including Greenock and Penrice. There are places like Balaklava, which has 1,000 homes; Clare, with 1,500 homes and business; Elizabeth, with 21,800 homes, 20,000 homes in Graigmore, Elizabeth Downs, Elizabeth East, The Grove, The Parks, The South, The Vale and The West, Hillbank and others. There are 600 homes in Freeling, 1,200 in my home town of Kupunda, 700 in Riverton and 900 in Tarlee. And 9,400 homes are going to be connected in Gawler, which is part of the one-year plan. Evanston and Evanston Gardens, Evanston Park, Gawler, Gawler Belt, Gawler East, Gawler South, Gawler West, Hewett and Willaston—all suburbs in the town of Gawler—are going to be connected. Work is going to commence from February 2013, in phases of work that are scheduled over a year.
These are rather important things for this town. It is a tremendous place to live. It is a place that is dominated by small business. I know that there are many small-business owners and many people who work from home who want to be able to do that in Gawler. And that is why it is surprising to see the Liberal Party's reaction to this—constantly disputing the need for it and constantly nit-picking about the National Broadband Network, when the member for Wentworth can actually get a question. I think the fact that the member for Wentworth cannot get a question in this place was raised in the joint party room of the coalition.
The Liberal Party want to tear up broadband in this electorate. I know my opponent, Tom Zorich—he is a lovely bloke but a little clueless at times—has now joined with Tony Abbott to commit to a policy platform that would tear up broadband in Gawler and tear up broadband for Elizabeth and places like Balaklava, Clare, Two Wells and Riverton. And I do not think that is very sensible. I do not think it is in the nation's interest. And I certainly do not think it is in the interests of the northern suburbs or Gawler or in the interests of all those small towns to the north of Gawler, where people need broadband as desperately as they need mobile phones and every other communication device. This is a very important nation-building project, and we hope to see it completed and brought to fruition.
I rise to acknowledge the remarkable achievements of an extraordinary group of Australians. I speak of those outstanding individuals who recently competed in the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games in London. Their inspiring achievements cast them as role models for young Australians across the country. As an aside, I also wish to commend Lord Coe and his team for hosting one of the finest examples of the Olympic tradition since the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. In fact, a number of my friends who have attended both games were even prepared to accept that perhaps London surpassed the Sydney Olympics.
As the member for North Sydney, I would like to highlight the achievements of those athletes who have a link with my electorate. I am talking about athletes like 24-year-old Ed Fernon, who competed in the modern pentathlon, an event which requires mastery in no fewer than five different Olympic sports: swimming, running, show jumping, fencing and pistol shooting. This was Ed's first Olympics and I wish him a bright future in this incredibly challenging sport.
Another first time Olympian was 22-year-old Lucinda Whitty, who won a silver medal with her team in Elliott six-metre sailing. Lucinda had previously distinguished herself as the 2010 Australian Female Sailor of the Year. She cut her teeth at the Lane Cove Sailing Club. Another was basketballer Aleksandar Maric. Alek stands six foot 11 in the old money and weighs 125 kilos, in the new money. In London, Alek and his Boomers managed to defeat Great Britain, Russia and China—magnificent. John Steffensen, almost considered a veteran in his third Olympics, acquitted himself admirably in the four-by-400-metre relay, which rounded out a very good season for him—he won all three 400-metre individual races he participated in over the summer.
North Sydney was represented by three Olympic rowers. Francis Hegerty, in his second Olympics after winning a silver medal in Beijing in the men's coxless four, competed this year in the men's eight. Daniel Noonan competed in the men's quad scull and won bronze. Daniel has raced for Australia at four rowing world championships. The third rower is Amy Clay, who was competing in her second Olympics in the women's quad scull. Amy was named New South Wales Oarswoman of the Year in 2011.
Who could have not been inspired by the Paralympians? These athletes overcome their disabilities to excel in their sports. Evan O'Hanlon competes in T38 sprint events, and he has cerebral palsy. At his first Paralympic Games, in Beijing in 2008, he broke three world records. He won another two gold medals this year in the 100-metre and 200-metre sprint events. He was also a recipient of the North Sydney community award for excellence in sport in 2009.
Michelle Rzepecki, a 25-year-old, represented Australia in goalball. She is classed as a B3 competitor, which means she has partial vision. While she and her team were unsuccessful in their bid for gold, they did us proud. Matthew Levy, in his third Paralympic Games, won five swimming medals, including a gold. His achievements speak volumes about his character and ability.
I also wish to make a special acknowledgment of my good friend Kelly Cartwright, who won gold in the women's long jump and silver in the women's 100 metres. I climbed Mount Kilimanjaro with Kelly in 2009. She is an amazingly determined young woman, hugely impressive in every way. When she was 15, she lost her leg to cancer. Unable to have chemotherapy, she had to have her leg amputated. She is an inspiration in every way.
All of these athletes are extraordinary Australians. They make me proud to be their local federal member and to speak in their honour tonight. They have made me and, I think, every other member of this House very proud of their achievements. Particularly those involved in the Paralympics are hugely admirable people who have overcome tremendous adversity already in their lives. They do not just inspire us as individuals; they inspire the community, our country and the world.
We have heard a lot from Labor over the last week about Queensland public service cuts. There is no doubt that Campbell Newman's slash-and-burn approach to the budget will have a devastating impact on the Queensland public service and on Queenslanders. What we do not hear so much about from the federal Labor government is the impact of the Treasurer's budget cuts on the Commonwealth Public Service and on the country—the ACT in particular.
There are around 160,000 employees of the Australian Public Service, and 38 per cent of those, or 61,000, are employed here in the ACT. Their livelihoods are being sacrificed in the name of producing a budget surplus. There are huge savings available in the budget which would not impact on jobs. We could look at the diesel fuel rebate given to wealthy mining and resource companies, who can well afford to pay for their own fuel. We could change superannuation concessions. We could look at plugging the hole that is left by the government's cave-in to the miners on the resource super profits tax, now the MRRT.
Instead, this year's budget has allocated staffing reductions of 4,200 full-time equivalent jobs across the APS. The Canberra Times has modelled that 12,000 APS jobs will be lost over the next three years, before the bureaucracy starts to grow again. The ATO will be hardest hit, with 1,039, or five per cent, of its staff losing their jobs. DHS will lose 470, on top of 2,000 from 2011. DEEWR lost 500 because of the efficiency dividend, the Department of Health and Ageing lost 370, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency lost 300 and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet lost 40.
This is all despite Labor's 2010 election promise to Canberra that the overall level of employment would be maintained. In addition to these job losses, the efficiency dividend has increased from 1.5 per cent to a whopping four per cent this financial year, which will have a huge impact on service delivery and nation building and will particularly affect our cultural institutions.
Added to the strain of the efficiency dividend will be the huge cutback in grant programs and funding projects that the APS manages, delivers or oversees. This will give a future government, of either Liberal or Labor persuasion, more room to lay off a great deal of public servants. For example, just yesterday, the Clean Technology Investment Program was suspended. It provided energy efficiency grants for manufacturers and rural food processors, and its future is uncertain. It is these types of programs that the Australian Public Service does so well, and it is their expertise that will be lost if grant programs are abandoned or jobs are lost. We rely on the Australian Public Service's professionalism to ensure the best value for public money is obtained.
What must make it even more frustrating for the ACT Public Service is that this surplus is a mirage—by bringing forward spending a year or deferring it a year. For instance, the dirtiest coal generators managed to get $1 billion in cash up-front this financial year for carbon price effects on their asset values, in exchange for no payment in a budget surplus year, with forgone public revenue in the years after the surplus year.
For those employed in our national cultural institutions, the National Gallery, the National Museum, the National Library and the National Film and Sound Archive, among others, the Greens were able to organise for a $40 million injection to offset the philistine-inducing efficiency dividend. These places are great for our nation, for tourism and for the ACT economy. The Greens won the battle to exempt cultural institutions from the new four per cent efficiency dividend; however, future budget years expose them, because it is a cash refund, not an exemption. But we will be watching every budget closely. These minimal savings do not justify the damage they wreak on our places of cultural pride and joy, especially when other means to obtain revenue are available.
There is no doubt that, unless we address the Commonwealth's revenue problem, we will be looking down the barrel of more Public Service cuts. The Greens are doing everything we can to convince the government to address the revenue problem. We want to plug the gap in the mining tax. We have so far successfully opposed big business tax cuts. We are looking at ways to make savings by ending corporate welfare such as diesel fuel rebates. It should not be the case that when one of us goes to the pump we pay 38c a litre tax but when a wealthy mining corporation go there they pay no tax.
We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the public sector union and public servants who are seeking to prevent further job losses, because we know that a strong Public Service means a stronger and fairer ACT and a stronger and fairer Australia. One must be consistent; one cannot be hypocritical. If it is bad to cut public service jobs in Queensland, it is bad to cut them in the ACT. (Time expired)
House adjourned at 20:01
Army Cadets is a very important activity, which provides leadership, discipline and many other forms of valuable training and experience for young Australians. Army Cadets has a very important presence in my electorate of Bradfield. There are three cadet units in Bradfield: 226 Army Cadet Unit Normanhurst, which includes students from Turramurra High School, St Leo's Wahroonga and other schools in my electorate; Barker College Cadet Unit; and the Knox Cadet Unit, which, as well as the boys from Knox, also includes an encouraging recent development, the girls from Ravenswood.
In total there are over 1,000 cadets in my electorate of Bradfield. That makes a very significant proportion of the total number of army cadets around Australia of some 14,000. The cadets play an important role in the life of the electorate of Bradfield. One of the highlights of the year is the annual Knox Grammar School Anzac Day service, followed by a cadet parade on Knox 1, the school's oval. Unfortunately, these very worthwhile activities are under a considerable threat, thanks to budget cuts imposed by the Gillard government. The Gillard Labor government has made a decision to reduce the cadet forces allowance for staff from 48 days per year to just 33.5 days—a 30 per cent cut.
An internal Department of Defence memo makes it clear that Australian Army Cadets staff will have a reduced time frame to submit pay claims and that all regional and local activities, conferences and camps for cadets will be cut, along with access to ration packs for camp. These issues were first raised with me in a letter from Jack Dalton, a student at Turramurra High who participates in the 226 Normanhurst Army Cadet Unit, who wrote to me saying:
The reason I am writing to you is because of the issue 226 ACU faces with the Defence budget cuts. If these budget cuts go ahead, cadets around Australia will face cuts to their activities, like live shooting and general training.
He goes on to say:
I am basically asking you if there is any way that cadets would be able to avoid the budget cuts.
It is extraordinary that the Gillard government should mount this attack on an activity which is so worthwhile to the development of young Australians. Fourteen thousand cadets around Australia, including over 1,000 in my electorate of Bradfield, are going to have their access to this very worthwhile activity constrained and cut back, because of budget cuts imposed by the Gillard Labor government. I join with my constituent, Jack Dalton of Turramurra High School and 226 ACU Normanhurst, to ask: is there any way the cadets will be able to avoid the budget cuts? (Time expired)
I rise to speak about the Petrie Future Leaders Essay and Public Speaking Competition for 2012. This year marks the third round of the competition, held annually in my electorate of Petrie. I would like to welcome here today to the chamber the two winners for this year's competition, Melvin Chen and Therese Camus, along with Melvin's father, David, and Therese's mother, Clarissa. Welcome to Parliament House today.
Therese won the primary school category. Therese has just turned 12 years old and is in grade 6 at Southern Cross Catholic College in Scarborough. Therese's essay and speech was about how we can save our environment from pollution, and she covered links between pollution and acid rain, smog, algal bloom and ozone depletion.
The secondary school winner was Melvin Chen. Melvin is 15, from grade 10 at North Lakes State College. Melvin's essay and speech strongly argued for higher investment from governments in school education, particularly in senior schooling. Melvin outlined the pressures faced by senior students approaching year 12 and the need for students to complete their education. This is Melvin's second year in the competition and I should note that last year he received a special commendation for his efforts, because Melvin has only been in Australia for three years. English is not his first language, and before he arrived he did not know any English. So to come along one year after last year's competition and win is a significant achievement. We congratulate Melvin for his great essay and speech. We also congratulate Therese for her fantastic essay and speech.
The 2012 competition was launched in March this year at the Petrie schools summit and culminated in a gala speech night on 9 August. The entrants must write an essay and state what they would want to speak to the Prime Minister about, what issue is important to them and why, and what they think we need to do about it. Primary school students must write no more than 1,000 words and secondary students up to 1,500 words. They are judged not just on their essay but also on their public speaking skills, as they must stand up at a gala night and present their speech in front of an audience that includes many people they do not know. This year we had more than 60 people there—parents, teachers, principals and many of our local business leaders, some of whom were our judges this year.
I would like to acknowledge our judges: Mr Bob Steele from the Brisbane North Chamber of Commerce, Ms Melanie Pope, and Mr Ken Leonard OAM, Chairman and CEO of Lions Recycle for Sight. I also acknowledge the Brisbane Airport Corporation, who have supported this competition each year and who donated $1,000 this year towards the cost of the flights for the two students and parents. I hope both students take away from today's visit an enthusiasm to participate in public debate and ensure that the youth of today have a strong voice.
I join in the member for Petrie's congratulations for those two inspirational students.
I rise today to speak about the generous spirit of another family in my electorate who have worked alongside local community clubs and volunteers to raise financial support for charities over many years. Families in my electorate of Mitchell have a longstanding tradition of taking pride in their homes and gardens, both small and large. Our shire is known as the 'Garden Shire'. Many in our community today think this term is an anachronism, but more than two-thirds of our shire is still rural land used for farming and other agricultural industries. The Orange Blossom Festival and the garden competitions, which were part of the festival and saw some of the most beautiful gardens being created with time, love and patience by families, are great memories. All of this history reflects the basic tenets of our community and the ethos that endures in our community. This is another stunning endorsement of the values of communities anchored by property ownership. Ownership produces pride in community, pride in the land and pride in the home and provides the most certain of platforms for people to put back into the community they form a part of.
One such family generously opened their uniquely stunning garden recently on behalf of the Rotary Club of the Hills-Kellyville to raise funds for charity again. This Garden of Secrets, located in Castle Hill, is a unique and personalised landscaped garden that spans the family's magnificent property. Twenty-five years ago, Paul and Jennifer Leone moved into the property where they have stayed and raised their family of eight children. Sadly, they lost one of their sons to an accident. To honour his memory they set about creating a memorial garden in his name.
The Leones are a remarkable family who have not only opened their home to the general public but opened their hearts so that charities such as the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children, Hart Walkers, Guide Dogs and many others will benefit from their generosity and hospitality. Over a two-day period, some 4,000 visitors walked through the east gate of the private home and were immediately transported into a place of tranquillity and colourful beauty, with classical music enhancing their senses. Twice per year, 18,000 bedding annuals are planted to produce a rich tapestry of colour and texture. Special features include transformation of the original horse area into an impressive fountain, life-size bronze sculptures, several water features, beautiful open spaces and manicured lawns, making it easier for families to enjoy their visit to this special place.
Like so many events held in my electorate, this event was well supported by some 50 volunteers drawn from the Rotary Club of the Hills-Kellyville, the Rotary Club of Castle Hill, the Inner Wheel Club of Baulkham Hills and Lantern Ladies from the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children. The volunteers worked tirelessly to cater for the large crowd. Over $20,000 was raised in two days in support of these charities. Like so many other families in my electorate, the Leone family are stalwarts of the community who look beyond their own circumstances to encompass the lives of others. This recent event marked the fourth time the Leone family have opened their garden for charity, and they have so far raised over half a million dollars. Some things change in our world, but the pride and the community spirit of the Leone family are a great example to all of us.
Hepatitis C is a major health issue throughout the world. It is estimated that worldwide there are between 130 million and 170 million people living with chronic hepatitis C. In Australia, according to the 2011 Annual Surveillance Report produced by the Kirby Institute, there were 221,000 people living with chronic hepatitis C, 170,000 people living with chronic hepatitis B and 21,391 people living with HIV infection. It is also estimated that one in three people with hepatitis B and one in four people with hepatitis C are undiagnosed.
Hepatitis is inflammation of the liver from any cause. Hepatitis C is a highly infectious blood-borne virus which was first identified in 1988 and is transmitted through direct blood-to-blood contact. The most common cause of new hepatitis C infections in Australia is sharing contaminated drug-injecting equipment.
The symptoms of chronic infection are typically slow to emerge, and many people are unaware of their infection for years. Typical symptoms include fatigue, abdominal pain, nausea, loss of appetite, intolerance to alcohol and problems concentrating. However, these vary from person to person.
Hepatitis C is the leading reason for liver transplants in Australia, and hepatitis B and C are the primary causes of liver cancer. Last week, a conference in New Zealand was told that the number of new cases of liver cancer is expected to double in the next decade unless urgent action is taken to diagnose and treat an epidemic of viral hepatitis.
Statistically, Indigenous Australians and overseas born Australians from countries where there may have been an epidemic are the most likely to be affected. The Boston Consulting Group report titled The Economic impact of hepatitis C in Australia released in August 2012 states that there is an estimated $252 million annual cost to the Commonwealth and state and territory governments, and a projected five-year cost of $1.5 billion.
Two new direct-acting antiviral medications, Boceprevir and Telaprevir, are already available in many OECD countries. They have been registered in Australia and it is hoped they will be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule before the end of 2012. I urge the minister to support the listing of these medications. It is encouraging to see that current research suggests that treatments with virtually no side effects and a 90 to 100 per cent cure rate are a realistic prospect within five years. Hepatitis is a major health issue, but it can be treated. We can reduce the prevalence of hepatitis throughout the community and assist people already with the disease. What we need is a greater will to do so.
I rise to update the House on a local, but very important, issue I have been working on in my electorate with Councillor Glenys Godfrey of Belmont. The Belmont Toy Library has been operating out of its current location at the Redcliffe Park Community Centre since 2003 and has provided a wonderful service to families across the area. This is a valuable and much-loved service. The community centre manages to bring families together in the community while at the same time encouraging play, which, as Glenys has said, is a very important part of children's development in their early years.
However, such has been the success of the toy library—under the guidance of Angela Holmes, Heather Forrester and Julie-Anne Beasley—that it has reached capacity in its current location, with a membership of about 35 families. It has reached the point where, in order to expand the services it provides to the community, it needs to move to bigger permanent accommodation.
As such, over the last couple of months I have been working with Councillor Godfrey and the Belmont Toy Library committee on a plan to facilitate a move to expand local services so that more families can benefit. We discussed this plan with Heather and Julie-Anne on a visit to the toy library on 21 July. It was fantastic to see the benefit the children were getting and it was a productive meeting with regard to the plan for expanded services and relocation.
Benefits of a move could potentially include increasing access for Belmont families, including a possible mid-week toy library session. There would also be opportunities for expanding the toy collection and, depending on the location, providing outdoor spaces and better facilities for the children. There could also be potential for a networked computer system and a child-friendly kitchen and bathrooms.
I have also consulted with the community, and many people have returned the surveys I sent out to let me know what they think. There has been a high response rate and there has been widespread support expressed for an expansion of services at a new centre. It is clear that the toy library is loved by parents and grandparents alike and that residents want to see it succeed.
As part of the plan, we have been discussing the possibility of a number of new locations across Belmont for the site, including the Redcliffe kindergarten, the former Cloverdale kindergarten in Sydenham Street and the proposed multi-user Centenary Park community and recreation centre, which I have been supporting redevelopment plans for. The Centenary Park option could be particularly promising, with a potential redevelopment, including the toy library, and providing families with state-of-the-art facilities. I have supported the City of Belmont in its requests for funding for this project. These options require council approval and Glenys Godfrey has been working on this as well. We are hopeful of a good result and I will continue to keep the House updated. I would also like to congratulate the committee at the Belmont Toy Library for their service to the community and their dynamic and forward thinking approach. I wish them all the best for the future, and hopefully in the near future we will have some good news from the state government and Lotterywest.
I want to talk about affordable housing in Australia. The real problem for households with mortgages in Australia is not just interest rates but, more fundamentally, the size of the mortgage. This means that any small movements in mortgage rates have a great effect on people's ability to make their repayments. The size of mortgages has risen as house affordability in this country has plummeted. Since only 2006, the average mortgage in New South Wales has grown from around $272,000 to over $365,000 in 2011. This is a 34 per cent increase, which is close to the national average of 32 per cent.
Families have moved to the Central Coast, western and south-western Sydney so that they can afford to buy a house which 20 years ago they would have bought much closer to their jobs and to the CBD. Often these areas, like my electorate, have issues with a lack of infrastructure to facilitate the growing population. Much of the action on housing affordability has been on the cost of financing housing. We all now have an obsession with interest rates, and we wait for the prophet-like pronouncements from the Reserve Bank governor each month on the level of interest rates. The government has acted on issues to do with increasing competition between banks. However, this ignores the cause of large mortgages. It is the supply side with structural impediments forcing up the price of housing and hence the size of family mortgages. It is also the supply side that is important if we want to avoid the property bubbles that saw the US, Spanish and Irish economies so badly affected in the GFC.
The Labor government, upon election in 2007, and in the most recent cabinet reshuffle, has a portfolio for housing. This is important. However, successive governments, including this government, have not acted in relation to a national housing plan aimed at making housing more affordable in this country, and I am suggesting two areas that need to change to address this.
Firstly, the way in which land is released for development is fundamentally flawed. We have in place a system where incentives are built in to drip-feed the release of land to maximise the development fees payable to state and local governments, rather than looking at a national housing stock and areas of supply. It is currently in the best interests of both local and state governments to have restricted releases of land to help push up the development fees as demand exceeds the supply of land. This needs to change. Australia should have a national housing plan which streamlines the release of land and targets both the amount and the areas to be released in the interests of having supply meet the demand. This would keep house prices down.
Secondly, a national infrastructure plan based on land supply needs to be integrated into this plan. Hospitals, roads, water supply, utilities availability, public transport and community facilities need to be funded and approved as part of a national land release plan so that not only is there affordable housing but it is attractive to homeowners to move there. Unplanned urban sprawl and high mortgages will be a major problem in Australia if issues of supply continue to be ignored. A national housing strategy is the answer and it is one that I implore this housing minister to adopt.
I rise to talk this morning about the important community events that occur every September, which we excitedly watch on our televisions most weekends. We watch events like the Cowboys in the NRL being beaten on the weekend in the footy finals, and we focused on the AFL—the Adelaide Crows this weekend is a big focus in South Australia—
Honourable members interjecting—
Of course, Fremantle lost last weekend to the Adelaide Crows. We remember that we should focus on the importance of local football and local sports, and being September, those grand finals are also taking place—which are so important to so many people. Two weekends ago I was lucky enough to be invited to the Hills netball grand final, to help present some of the trophies, and I congratulate the Hills Netball Association on another successful season.
Last Saturday I was at the Hills country footy league grand final between Kersbrook and Echunga, and Brett James led Kersbrook yet again to beat Echunga in the grand final.
I tipped Echunga.
Echunga won the grand final last year, member for Herbert, but this year, unfortunately for them they were not able to beat Kersbrook in what was a terrific game. This Saturday we will have the Hills Central League grand final. Malcolm Williams, the president of the Mount Barker Barkeroos in my home town, is very excited this week and wants the whole town to be blue and white in preparation for their grand final against Uraidla, who are going for their fourth premiership in a row. So the township of Uraidla is used to this grand final preparation, and I am sure Willy's Barkeroos are ready for the game. In the Great Southern Football League, the grand final is between Langhorne Creek, going for their second in a row, and Yankalilla. That will be also a great game. Langhorne Creek, I would imagine, start very warm favourites for that, given they are going for two in a row and they won the second semi quite well.
Over on KI, we have Parndana versus Dudley United, so it is a big weekend for local football. It is a great time to remember the importance of these local football clubs and local sporting clubs to their communities.
Who is going to win on Kangaroo Island?
The Kangaroo Island grand final will be a very close and hard-fought affair, Member for Herbert, I am sure. I will not be able to get to that one, of course; I will be at the central league grand final between Mount Barker and Uraidla on Saturday, presenting the cup to the victor. I am sure the best side on the day will win. It will be a wonderful day; the weather looks terrific for it—
An honourable member: Where are the tips?
I remind them that they are all God's children, and we wish them well. It is just that some will be a little closer than others to God on Saturday. I hope everyone goes well and it is a successful weekend. I congratulate the Hills footy league and all the football leagues on another great year.
On 4 September it was my great pleasure to accompany the Prime Minister on her visit to South Fremantle Senior High School for a special event to celebrate the school's incredible achievement of becoming the first carbon neutral school in Australia under Low Carbon Australia's certification process.
To give people a sense of the magnitude of this achievement: there are only 28 organisations in all of Australia that are accredited as carbon neutral, and South Fremantle is the first school. As Low Carbon Australia's chairman, Mike Rann, noted:
South Fremantle Senior High School joins 27 other leading Australian organisations including Qantas, Virgin, NAB, ANZ, CBRE and Australian Paper, who through the Carbon Neutral Program are now collectively avoiding more than 1 million tonnes of carbon emissions annually.
The first thing anyone hearing that list of organisations would recognise is the huge relative discrepancy in terms of financial resources that exists between national banks and airlines, on the one hand, and a government high school on the other. What South Fremantle has done represents a nation-leading achievement of which every student, teacher and member of the school community should be immensely proud.
The school's hard but inspirational work involved making a 15 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, including 57.6 tonnes of CO2 emissions saved through greenhouse audit measures, and the planting of 29,000 trees through the Seed to Tree project. The school installed energy efficient heaters, flow restrictors on all hot water taps and a real-time monitoring system to track the use of electricity, gas and water.
Recognition for this outcome must go to the school principal, Geri Hardy; to Kathy Anketell, the school's sustainability officer—who since 2007 has led the entire school community with great intelligence, creativity and perseverance through a remarkable series of changes, programs and projects on the way to achieving carbon neutrality—as well as the teachers and students who supported that vision; and, finally, to Jan Newman and Professor Peter Newman. Peter Newman's multiple roles as a school parent and as a member of both the IPCC panel and the board of Infrastructure Australia make it no surprise that he, together with his wife, Jan, was responsible for the idea in the first place. He was also involved in guiding the process along the way, and in helping to arrange for two of his PhD students at the Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute to undertake the work necessary to meet the requirements for Low Carbon Australia certification.
I referred in my first speech in this place to South Fremantle's vision to have the first carbon neutral school in Australia, and it is thrilling to see that dream become a reality. At the celebratory event attended by the Prime Minister, Peter Newman said that people should never doubt the capacity of a local community to initiate significant change. That puts us in mind of the wise reflection by Margaret Mead, who said: 'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.' In this case, what started with a small group of Fremantle sustainability enthusiasts soon spread and caught fire within the hearts and minds of an entire school community. Indeed, with this remarkable result South Fremantle Senior High School has shone a light along the road of what is possible.
I rise to speak about a great community event in Townsville on the weekend. It was the 125th anniversary of the opening of Belgian Gardens State School. In fact, it was Townsville North State School that was opened in 1887 in the suburb of German Gardens. German Gardens had its name changed during World War I, but the school did not change its name until 1930.
It was a day of great celebration, and it was ably MCed by school captains Dylan Mann and Florence Cappler-Shillington—who is also a very dab hand at the violin. She and some past students from Belgian Gardens State School who are now at one of Townsville's fantastic state high schools, the Pimlico State High School, performed a string quintet, I think. They did Clocks by Coldplay, and it was absolutely magnificent to see the skills of these primary and secondary school students. There were also bush dances by the grade 2s. There were classroom displays. There were aquaponics displays where they grow their own vegetables and salad things, as well as a finch aviary. There were great displays by the school band.
I think Belgian Gardens State School looks very much like my state school, Texas State School, where I grew up. It is exactly the same sort of building and exactly the same sort of field. It is a great community school, and it is the model for what schools should be. It is led by Principal Suzanne Currin, who has only been there for 12 months but shows great leadership and brings the school community together. She sets the tone for the school. The school has community engagement through the P&C. Fleur Francis is an excellent communicator and a very clever person herself; she has a science background. She has really got the P&C together, working as one with the school to provide a great learning environment. That learning environment is reinforced by quality teachers who love their trade and love what they do, which makes it so easy for the kids to come into that school, because they can walk into an environment that is so positive that it makes them want to learn. I think it infects the kids with being good students and wanting to do better.
I think we focus so much on the issue of money and classroom sizes now. Only recently I saw a photo of my younger brother's grade 3 class in 1970 at Texas State School. There were 35 kids in that photo, and not one person in the front row was wearing shoes. There were some very bad haircuts. There were 35 kids in that class, with one teacher and no teachers aide. There were no PowerPoints and no data projectors, but everyone in that class could read and write. It comes down to having a principal that can work, and you will get the right results.
I rise today to highlight the important and courageous role that Australian nurses have played over the years in times of conflict. Today I pay my respects to women who went to war, risking their lives to care for soldiers injured on the battlefield. Many of these veteran nurses were young women at the time—often only a few years older than their male patients—and they left behind safe and secure lives in Australia to enlist in the defence forces to serve their country. Nurses have served in many conflicts, including the Boer War, Korea, Vietnam, World War I and World War II. They undertook their duty alongside their male counterparts, working tirelessly around the clock, often close to the front line, caring for the sick and wounded.
One of the most awful experiences of nurses is often commemorated at the Bangka memorial, which occurs at the South Australian Women's Memorial Playing Fields on the closest Sunday to 16 February. I know the member for Makin, who is here, has attended that service as well. It remembers nurses who, after their boat sank near Bangka Island, made it to shore only to be gunned down by Japanese soldiers, with only one survivor. So nurses have often served and have been in very dangerous situations but always showed care and compassion for those sick and wounded.
In particular, I would like to take this opportunity to praise one nurse today and pay tribute to her: Gwendoline Dinah Henderson, a woman who served as a nurse during World War II in the Middle East and later in Papua New Guinea. Gwen, as she was known, sadly passed away on 17 August this year at the age of 104. I would like to extend my condolences to Gwen's family and friends, because I know that she will be dearly missed. Gwen recounted some of her experiences and said that on some occasions there were over 100 new patients every night as she was serving, and often she was too busy to attend to the scores of casualties. There were often frightening scenes that she experienced. Gwen was one of the last nurses from World War II left in Australia and also one of the most decorated. Following her service to the Army, Gwen worked as a senior sister at the outpatients department of the repatriation hospital until 1968. She became vice-president of the Returned Sisters' Sub-Branch of the RSL and became a life member. Gwen was honoured with the Order of Australia Medal for her service to veterans in 2002. She is one of the only World War II nurses to have been honoured by a plaque on the Anzac Place memorial at Holdfast Shores. Let us remember Gwen and all of those nurses who served in conflict and provided comfort to those wounded at war.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
This issue is undoubtedly a contentious issue for a variety of reasons and for many people. There is nothing more iconic or symbolic than the institution of marriage. It means many things to many people and it has associated with it yet for many people a sacramentalisation by religion. Some people associate marriage with that sense of the spiritual, the religious or the sacramental, depending on their theology and beliefs. Some of those people associate marriage with a spiritual dimension. And it means a great deal to them. I do not deny that for a moment. I recognise that both in my own background and in my own socialisation as a Catholic, until I stopped being a practising Catholic. Indeed, I trained as a priest for a number of years as well and I have an abiding interest in the studies of religion. I have been a chief examiner and a teacher of studies in religion for many, many years in the college system. So I have a great appreciation of the significance of marriage for people of a religious persuasion or belief. Many of those people live in my electorate and have contacted me. In the main, those people have asked that the law not change in its definition and its extent in our community. I fully acknowledge and respect their viewpoints.
On the other hand , of course, for many other people marriage is a secular institution. It is viewed and valued in different ways, but it is for many of those people a formal recognition of their relationship, a formal state of recognition in the eyes of the community about the nature of their relationship. For many people it is also associated with the creation of a family and, in the main, is viewed as a relationship between a man and a woman. That, indeed, is the current definition as we understand the Marriage Act at the moment.
However, the institution itself is fundamentally, for me, a statement about relationships. There are many marriages that exist today very happily and that, of course, is a great testament to marriage as an institution and that formal recognition. There are many marriages that do not, for a variety of reasons, involve having children. The nature of that marriage is no less significant because they do not have children. So the institution itself is not necessarily for the creation of what we deem to be a family of mum, dad and children. Marriage is a formal recognition of the relationship between those two people. To me, marriage in our community has had an extraordinary history over time, as do most major social institutions. It has had a variety of meanings and functions, and they have been more traditionally different from how we understand it today.
Within marriage today and as it has evolved we talk about equality, partnerships and so forth. In other words, the individual has rights and their human rights are valued inside the institution which we call marriage. In our community it is, irrespective of how people may view it in terms of their personal values and beliefs, a secular, government recognised status. At the moment, that recognition is based on a gender relationship, and to me—and this is not easily arrived at—it is based on discriminating on gender. I believe that we as a community are evolving and working through our values system. I believe that the individual human rights of a person should not be discriminated against on the basis of their religious belief, on the basis of their gender, on the basis of their ethnicity or on the basis of their sexual preference. I do not believe that, if we change the act itself to allow people in same-sex relationships to adopt this iconic institution, it will affect the rights or status of opposite-sex couples in any sense. What it will do is include others who have been discriminated against in terms of being able to choose that institution, to be able to have formally recognised their relationship. I do not believe it affects one single religious belief in terms of those who regard a particular relationship as being unacceptable for whatever theological reason they may have. Those people will continue to hold those beliefs. This has nothing to do with that. People who find the relationships of same-sex couples to be unacceptable for a variety of reasons will continue to do so. No-one is forcing them to attend or be part of a marriage ceremony if two people decide they want to formally recognise their relationship. Nor will it require people who are of religious orders or have religious recognition and status to perform ceremonies or to perform marriages for same-sex couples, as it exists now for opposite-sex couples. So I do not believe the rights of other people and the values of other people are going to be affected at all by this decision to allow people who may wish to recognise their same-sex relationship to have it formally recognised in what is a secular, government recognised status.
I do appreciate that, like any major debate in our community, there are a variety of views on this. We move through these things; that is why we discuss, debate and, ultimately, legislate. The important thing about our legislation is that it is not so much that we have to grant a human right in this sense; we need to recognise and protect the human rights of everyone, and I believe that, at the moment, the Marriage Act discriminates against individuals and couples based on gender and sexual preference. I believe the law should change, and that is why I support this, but I do of course recognise the difficulty this presents for people who are opposed to it—I will be exercising my conscience vote in this—and the difficulty that is presented currently with the legislation for those people who want to formally recognise their relationship with their same-sex partner and their families. At the same time, I know all sides of the parliament were supportive of removing a lot of the discrimination and unfairness that was associated with same-sex relationships in terms of legal proceedings and other matters. I think it was something like 80 pieces of legislation in 2008 that were supported by the parliament. It was very significant. Indeed, that led to what some would regard as a reinstatement of fairness in recognising these relationships, but it is not a reinstatement and is certainly not an acceptance of equality. I believe that is what we need to recognise now and uphold, and that is why I will be supporting the legislation. Thank you very much.
I support the bill. I made this view clear at the most recent Australian Labor Party national conference in December 2011. I expressed my view at the time that legislation or the state in the guise of the Commonwealth parliament should not stand between same-sex couples having equal access to marriage to reflect their lifelong partnership—a secure, stable long-term relationship. This was not always my view. Indeed, at the previous Australian Labor Party national conference in 2009 I expressed a contrary view, what might be described as a traditional view. But I did take note on that occasion of the speech made to the conference by the now Minister for Finance and Deregulation, and said to her at that time that I had listened to her speech and this was something that I would have to think about. And I did. At the last national conference I made remarks which I have referred to.
Australian society has changed dramatically at very many levels since I grew up as a young boy in country Western Australia and subsequently in Perth. I was born in the mid-1950s, and the generation of my mother and father, who were young men and women in the 1950s, essentially did what the current Commonwealth Marriage Act reflects. Young men and women of their generation got married, had children and set up modern, post-World War II Australia. In 1961 the Commonwealth Marriage Act essentially took over the institution of marriage from the states where there had been previous state legislation reflecting the institution of marriage.
So, for men and women of the fifties, sixties and, indeed, the early seventies, this was the norm. De facto relationships between men and women were not recognised. On the contrary, they were either kept private or shunned. Same-sex relationships were kept very private, were shunned and same-sex relationships between men were serious criminal offences in every jurisdiction.
The first change to legislation and societal attitudes in the area of marriage came in the mid-1970s when this parliament in 1975 enacted the Family Law Act and for the first time bona fide, genuine de facto relationships between men and women were recognised as they should have been. That was deeply significant legislation passed by this House and the parliament. So for the first time, a very short period of time ago in an historical sense, bona fide domestic relationships between men and women which were not the subject of a ceremony—religious or otherwise—under the Marriage Act were recognised by the parliament and by the state. That enabled important rights and entitlements to flow as they did for couples who had had their relationship recognised under the Marriage Act. They went to rights of custody for children if the relationship broke down and to entitlements pursuant to maintenance and to estates in the aftermath of death of a partner.
We saw that substantial change in the 1970s. In the 1970s, but more particularly in the early to mid-1980s, through the Commonwealth parliament and state and territory parliaments—almost across the board—we saw the enactment of anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation. This effectively made it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of sex, gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity and the like. So the next substantial body of work done by this and other parliaments was to enshrine in Commonwealth, territory and state legislation the notion that people were equal before the law irrespective of sex, gender or sexual preference. In the course of the last two parliaments, led by then Attorney-General McClelland, we have seen substantial work done to remove the remnants of discrimination to same-sex couples who were disadvantaged by the failure to recognise a same-sex relationship.
When you look at the change in Australian society—the sweep of legislative history at state, federal and territory levels—you see we are now in a position where effectively the capacity of a man and a woman to marry under the Commonwealth Marriage Act is respected and reflected. The capacity of a man and woman to be in a long-term relationship, a bona fide domestic relationship not reflected by the Marriage Act, is respected under the law where the same entitlements and rights accrue. Finally in respect of every area other than marriage itself there is a recognition by Commonwealth legislation that same-sex couples are not discriminated against for entitlements, benefits or their status.
Indeed, in the course of that sweep of legislation, we have also seen the removal from all of the state and territory jurisdictions of Criminal Code or criminal law provisions which made it a serous criminal offence for male homosexual conduct. Much earlier in my working life, I was very pleased as principal private secretary to the Attorney-General of Western Australia to strongly support the passage of private members' legislation through the Western Australian parliament to decriminalise homosexual activity or conduct.
One last area remains and that is: do we now as a modern, tolerant society accept people of the same sex who want to have their relationship recognised under Commonwealth law, who want to say, 'We are in a long-term, enduring loving partnership, we want our relationship recognised as well'? That is the issue which this piece of legislation confronts the House and the parliament with. The attitude and view that I express as a result of exercising my conscience—because this is, in my view, a conscience vote issue—is a view that I would not have expressed five or so years ago. Australian society has changed. We are a mature, tolerant society. This is a conscience vote because people form a view about this issue as a result of a belief strongly held. There may be a religious basis for that belief. There may be a cultural basis for that belief. In this area, everyone's view is entitled to be treated with respect and with dignity. The view that I have come to is that this parliament should recognise same-sex couples and allow them equal access to the institution of marriage.
This is an important piece of legislation. It comes before us as a private member's bill. It is not the first occasion either before this parliament or before state and territory parliaments that issues of this nature have been determined by a private member's bill where people have exercised their conscience. Like most members of this place, I have been the recipient of a wide variety of views expressed to me on the streets of Perth or through my electorate office. My own judgement is that the majority view, or the prevailing attitude, is that the parliament should allow equal access to marriage for same-sex couples. But I do not think we should determine it on the basis of a majority view; we should determine it on the basis of what we think is the right thing to do.
I think it is also the case that the absolute overwhelming view of young Australian men and women—teenagers and young adults—is that, frankly, they do not see what the problem is. They do not see what the fuss is about. They are living in a generation where they treat all of their colleagues and friends as equals, irrespective of sex, irrespective of gender, irrespective of sexual preference and irrespective of private and personal relationships. That reflects the changing Australia. We are a much more prosperous society than we were when my mother and father were raising a family in country Western Australia and in Perth.
For those reasons of conscience, it is appropriate that this parliament enacts this legislation to enable equality before the law not just for men and women but for men and men and women and women—same-sex couples who wish to have their relationship reflected by the status afforded under the Marriage Act of the Commonwealth.
Today I rise in this chamber to support marriage equality. I do so because I believe it is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. All individuals are entitled to the right to participate fully in our society and to receive the support and protection of the law, regardless of their sexuality.
Let's be clear. The inequality and the intolerance that many lesbians and gay men face will not immediately stop if this bill is passed. No law can deliver that. It will take time to pull down the prejudices that have built up over time. What laws can do is remove institutional injustice. That is what gays and lesbians face today.
This bill will also send an important message. It sends an important message about acceptance of individuals in our society, regardless of their sexuality. There are many young people right now struggling to come to terms with their sexuality. There has been too much tragedy in the past as a result of issues relating to discrimination. Indeed, a failure by society to offer full acceptance has led at times to people being less than frank—often with themselves, let alone with the people around them—about their sexual orientation, with consequences as a result of that.
We need to send a message that it is surely a basic right for each of us to be able to marry the person that we love. I fail to see how the institution of marriage is weakened if more people have the right to participate in it. My view on this comes down, essentially, to one fundamental disagreement with those who will not support this legislation, and that is that giving one group of people the rights that they have been denied in any way diminishes the rights that currently exist for the rest of us.
That is why I have been fighting for equality for same-sex couples ever since I was elected to federal parliament 16½ years ago. Indeed, fighting for equality is what led me to join the great Australian Labor Party more than 30 years ago. I am proud that Labor governments were the ones to decriminalise homosexuality. Labor governments were the ones that had the courage to confront the deadly HIV-AIDS epidemic and set an example for the rest of the world. Labor governments were the ones to advance same-sex adoption. On each of those occasions there were people of goodwill across the political spectrum who supported equality, and I know that there are many people in the coalition who would like to vote for this legislation but who will not be able to. I think that contrasts with the leadership that has been shown by Barry O'Farrell, the New South Wales Premier, in acknowledging the importance of a conscience vote on this issue in the New South Wales parliament.
When I first arrived in this place in my first term of parliament, I moved the same-sex superannuation legislation to remove discrimination when it came to superannuation. At that time, that was seen as a radical piece of legislation. I had to re-introduce it time after time. There was no debate allocated in the chamber, and a number of times it lapsed—just a short period of time when we look at the extent of the human condition. That legislation, coupled with another 84 pieces of legislation, passed this parliament without opposition during the last term of parliament. Eighty-four pieces of legislation to remove discrimination: it went from being an issue of controversy to an issue which was essentially had a consensus in this parliament. That, to me, is indicative of the way in which society does move forward on issues, not just in terms of equality for people regardless of their sexual preference but on race and gender issues as well. We as a society, particularly under liberal democracies such as we cherish here in Australia, are moving forward to embrace diversity and difference and to respect people on that basis. So I have no doubt that in the near future the removal of this final frontier of discrimination will occur. And then I think people will recognise immediately afterwards that the sky has not fallen, that people have not suddenly changed their sexual orientation as a result of that legislation and that the institution of marriage has in fact been strengthened by the fact that more people are prepared to engage in an institution which celebrates lifelong commitments between two people who love each other. That is what we are talking about with this legislation here.
I very much respect the views of colleagues who disagree with me on this issue. I respect their right to say it and to participate in this debate in a constructive way. I must say that I do not respect some of the views that have been expressed that promote intolerance and reinforce prejudice, and I know that people across the political spectrum in this parliament will agree with me on that. I think that, regardless of what position people will take on this final legislation, overwhelmingly this debate has been constructive, and I congratulate the member for Throsby on his initiative in putting forward this legislation. I say also to those people who support this legislation that we need to be inclusive in the way that we conduct ourselves in this debate. We should be tolerant in the way that we conduct ourselves in this debate. We cannot argue that we are about inclusiveness if we do not act that way ourselves, because I believe that this change is coming, just as we have removed other areas of discrimination in a range of areas. I come down to a fundamental view: that extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples in no way detracts from the rights of marriage that heterosexual couples currently enjoy. I have had the opportunity to be married. I see no reason why someone who happens to want to marry someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex should not have the same right that I enjoyed.
I also think that in this debate we need to be very careful about the nature of all of our relationships. As someone who was raised by a single mother, I say that those people who speak about the family unit as if they know exactly what is right, to the exclusion of other family relationships, need to think very carefully about the messages that they send to families who are not nuclear in their composition. I was in a two-person family. It was a loving family, and my mother gave me everything that a parent could give their child. Some of the views that have been promoted in this debate question that when they question the diversity that exists in our society.
The fact is that Australia is moving forward on these issues. Most of us have siblings, children, neighbours, friends or work colleagues who happen to be gay or lesbian. It is a simple fact of life. The way that Australians deal with it is just to get on with it, treating each other with respect and as equals. We should not pretend that marriage is an unchanging institution that has been around forever, because it has not. It has evolved just as relationships evolved, just as society evolved. Today we recognise that couples in de facto relationships should have the same rights as married couples. That was not the case a few years ago. Our values and our relationships have evolved and they will continue to do so.
Many relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual, are committed, loving relationships. It is not up to me to judge whether a relationship between a man and a woman is more important, more significant or more loving than a relationship between a man and another man or between a woman and another woman. We do not know what goes on inside relationships. Surely people recognise that life is more complex than that.
We need to face up to the realities of modern Australia. We need to have faith in our fellow Australians wherever they might live. We should have faith that Australians can and have overcome prejudice, intolerance and injustice. Importantly, we should have faith that members of this parliament can make the decision to vote for or against this bill for themselves, which is why I supported this being a conscience vote issue at the ALP national conference—a position that put me in some disagreement with some of my colleagues. I argued that consistently. I argued for equality consistently. I am very pleased to be able to support this legislation, which will be voted on today in the House of Representatives. I look forward to the day when legislation similar to this is passed and discrimination is removed.
I have listened closely to all speakers in this debate. I have been challenged by and thought deeply on the many issues involved in this topic. I have talked as widely as possible with the full spectrum of representatives of various views in this debate as well as the many within the community who remain relatively neutral on this topic. Of all topics before this House in my four years in this place, this one challenges my view of representation more than all others. I have previously very clearly stated that my view of representation is not to run with the populist mood of the moment, that that is to break the social contract with electors; instead it is very much the Burkean model in his letter to the electors of Bristol, and that is to uphold the social contract with electors by doing your homework, by listening to all the views and then, ultimately, by making a conclusion and representing that conclusion that you think is right for community and country. This one tests that model of representation more than any other because there are some very strongly held views in this debate from most of those who care either for the continuation of the Marriage Act as amended in the mid-2000s or for change to remove any gender-specific reference. At the heart of the conflict I face are a range of issues on both sides and then some conclusions. First, in conversations with representatives from various churches, I have disagreed that a literal reading of the Bible being against homosexuality should be the basis of our view today. I do not think that reflects Australia today, and neither does it reflect the many valuable contributions made by many who on that literal reading should not be participating in society at all. So I disagree with that very strict, literal reading of certain sections of the Bible.
I also sometimes see people trying to build a case that all of this, with change, is somehow going to be compulsory. None of this is compulsory. It is not compulsory who you fall in love with and it is not compulsory for any organisation to marry anyone they do not voluntarily want to. So all of what we are talking about in this debate today is of a voluntary nature. No-one is forced to do anything they do not want to do either as an individual or as an organisation.
I also reflect on some of the debate around health and prevention, particularly from the aspect of a regional member of parliament facing issues of suicide in his electorate. For many regional teenagers this is an incredibly difficult issue to deal with. The arguments that I have seen emerge over the last week or two—trying to build a case that there is lower life expectancy for those who are gay compared with those who are not—is, in my view, actually an argument to expand the bond of love rather than contract it. So it is an argument which has assisted me in drawing some conclusions, particularly from the perspective of a regional MP and particularly, out of all the health profession measures, from the perspective of the issue of youth suicide in regional communities such as mine.
There is also an opportunity in this debate to dispel some other myths about regional Australia. This is not an issue owned by Sydney and Melbourne—and throw in a bit of Brisbane! This is an issue owned by all Australians. On the mid-North Coast of New South Wales we have a very large gay and lesbian community, many of whom play really valuable roles in our community and are engaged in many aspects of community life. Rather than dismissing them or putting them in some sort of corner as a sector that we accept but on other occasions deny, I say on behalf of the mid-North Coast—not on behalf of this Marriage Act debate but on behalf of the community—to anyone of any sexual orientation: you are welcome members of our community so long as you contribute. That is the condition of entry to the mid-North Coast of New South Wales: you participate in community life and you contribute to building a better place. I would hope the majority view is one like mine—that, frankly, I do not give a stuff what you do in your bedroom. That is your business, just as it is my business as an individual, as a father and as a member of parliament what I do in my bedroom.
That gets me onto the issue of the role of the state. This is not an issue I campaigned on in any of the last five elections I have been involved in. So, as a member of parliament, I do feel a bit blindsided by the debate before this chamber over the last couple of years, but I am big enough and ugly enough to deal with it. I will ultimately make a yes or no decision. In thinking this through over the last couple of years, it has become increasingly obvious to me that, from my perspective, this is less an issue of gender in the Marriage Act and more an issue of: what the hell is the state doing in this space anyway?
Why is the state involved in the bedroom and in love and in relationships at all? I particularly note a recent article by Michael Sexton, the Solicitor-General in New South Wales, who made exactly that point. I know it is not going to happen today, but I even find myself—for the first time, I think—agreeing with the Institute of Public Affairs on this topic that the role of the state in love is a questionable one.
There is a second option of finding a way for state governments, with the powers that they have, to take a lead on this. I note what New South Wales is doing today. I note the debate that is happening in Tasmania. But I also hope that, wherever all these four bills before the House at the moment end up, we not only reflect on gender in the Marriage Act but also reflect on the role of the state. Can we do better in capturing the bond of love and the building of community in a better way than providing boundaries in a Commonwealth piece of legislation? I have frankly been surprised that the Commonwealth is in my bedroom. I did not know that. I had not really thought about it. The more I think about it, the more I am surprised by it.
Having said that, I also think there are some contradictions in the position that the Commonwealth is taking and the role of the state. I go back to the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, one of the hotter debates of last year. I invite people to go and look at the definition of marriage in a completely different piece of legislation and see that it is really business as normal in this parliamentary process. The definition of marriage in legislation that was passed last year is: 'Marriage includes people who live together in a relationship as a couple on a genuinely domestic basis, even where they are not legally married.' So, even in the run of business in this place already, we are already defining marriage as a relationship between 'a couple who live in a genuinely domestic relationship', and decoupling this issue of legal marriage. It sounds oxymoronic, but that is what we have been doing for at least a year, and there is an example of a piece of legislation where we have done it.
The other point I would like to make is a personal one. I am in a loving marriage with someone of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. For me: no big deal. And, I would hope, for most Australians: no big deal. But in reading and thinking about this issue over the last couple of years, there was a time in Australian history where I could not have expressed that love and got married to my wife. That is a shocker. I therefore am exposed if I do anything other than reflect that same principle for others in their relationships. If they fall in love with someone and their love is not reflected in law, they quite rightly should and could feel exactly as I would: that that is a shocker. So that is a personal reflection from me that helps drive my considerations. In the final couple of minutes I have to speak in this debate, I will put my worries on the table. I have spoken of the sentiments that lead me to take a position that this issue of equality is really a bit of a no-brainer. My worries are more about the process issues, that we are using this parliament to address traditions and norms that can and could be addressed in other ways, and the strategic questions. I worry that we have four bills before this chamber. I worry that there is a vote in the Senate today that may be close and that we have the Leader of the House saying that we are going to go for it today in the House of Reps and more than likely it is going to have a grand loss. I worry about what the strategies of the political parties are behind why we have got four bills. We have the bipartisanship you have when you don't have bipartisanship. If we do this, it has got to be as seamless and as bipartisan as possible, and it has got to stick, because I also worry that we still have not heard whether, if this change were made, it would be a weapon of campaigns in the future and we will then have the Marriage Act coming before this House to be changed with changes of government. It would help me a lot, and I know it would help many people, to have clarity, particularly from the Liberal-National Party, on whether this change, if it happens either in this parliament or in the future, is change that will stay or whether we are going to revisit debates from 2006 and see a reinsertion of gender. That concerns me greatly.
I worry that we are rushing this at a time when, only today, New South Wales has made some pretty significant moves. I would prefer to see the detail of that and to watch that process unfold, as with the situation in Tasmania as well. I also worry that, regardless of what we do, this is going down the road to the High Court. One way or the other, where this really should have been to start with, prior to 2006, is in a legal definition based on legal precedent of that word 'marriage' in the Australian Constitution. From my reading of several key cases, they were slowly defining and redefining what that word meant. In my view it would have been preferable for that process to continue to unfold. What we are seeing today is a natural response by politicians to an incursion by politicians in 2006. I think that is unfortunate. I therefore worry that we are just heading to the High Court regardless of what we do. So more than likely, based on that conflict, I will support this legislation. But that is conditional: I hope there is commitment to cleaning up processes and cleaning up strategy. I know this is looking more like a statement today than anything else. I am in the business of getting wins and results, and if we are serious about that we have got more work to do.
I will be summing up the debate on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. I will start by thanking the many members who have contributed to this debate, at times a passionate debate and a very personal debate, as it often is in this space. The contribution from the member for Lyne typifies the quality of contributions we have had in this chamber. I listened very carefully to the member for Lyne's contribution. Many of the points that he raised have been raised by other speakers in this debate, and through the course of my summing-up I will reflect upon some of those.
The Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, in his contribution made the point that the change that we seek to occur will require a respectful debate within the parliament and within the community, a debate that brings people along with us and does not seek to isolate and alienate. I concur with those observations. In fact, when I first spoke on this matter in the House when a private member's motion came before the House last year, I said that if change were to occur it would not occur because of some mad dash to the finish line because some member of this place seeks to own the cause to the exclusion of all others for party or other reasons. That is the very nature of this parliament; if we are able to get any change then we need more votes than can be mustered by any one party that sits in the House. So a mad dash to the finish line will not achieve the results that we seek.
The case for the bill is simple. It is about equality, it is about recognition of relationships—the validation of those relationships—and it is about saying to people who are often excluded, alienated or discriminated against: 'You know what? You are okay. What's more, you are better than okay: your relationship is just as valid as mine is in my marriage to my wife. And if you seek to have that relationship described as a marriage and recognised by the state as a marriage then who are we to stand in your way?' As I said when I introduced this bill, I firmly believe that God made us all equal but different—not differently equal. If this bill is passed into the law, it will ensure that this House recognises that we are equal but different, not differently equal, when it comes to marriage and the recognition of our relationships.
Can I say a few words about the objections that have been raised within this debate? The first objection springs from what I can only describe as some religious or theological objection. I have listened very carefully to all of the constituents who have come through my door and said that, essentially, to bring this bill forward and to vote in favour of this bill is an affront to their religion. Can I say that the objection that they have is not to the bill? It is not to marriage equality; it is to the relationship itself. As many, many speakers have said in this debate, I respect your right to hold that view, but it is another thing entirely to ask the state to enforce it. We have moved on as a society; we no longer believe, as some may hold, that to be gay is somehow wrong, an aberration or a sin. I do not believe that, and I was brought up in a very strong Catholic family; if we demurred from any of the theology of the Catholic Church it was on this one issue, that we do not believe that to be gay is an affront to God and that it is not a sin. So, as much as I might respect people's right to hold that view, we cannot make our laws based on what I believe to be a wrong.
The second objection I summarise as this: to change the law in the way that I propose to change the law is somehow an affront to the tradition of marriage. As many, many speakers have said—and as the member for Lyne quite eloquently just said in his contribution—the institution of marriage has changed in many, many ways over the last 100 years and over the last several centuries. The member for Lyne would have been unable to marry his wife in many states in Australia if he had met her 80 years ago and sought to marry her, because the laws of Australia at that point in time did not allow or recognise the marriage between a white Australian and an Australian who is an Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander. The laws of marriage once recognised the institution of betrothal, where a father or brother could betroth their daughter or sister as if she were some kind of property, ensuring that she could be married against her will. In some countries this practice still goes on. We do not recognise that in this country.
I can only imagine, Deputy Speaker—and I know that you are about to get married at some stage in the next few months—the response that I would have received if, in the preparation for my marriage, I asked my wife in the recitation of our marriage vows that she would honour and obey me, let alone submit to me. I can inform the House that I would not be married today and that marriage of 13 of years or more would not have occurred if that had been insisted on in my marriage rites. Dowry, inter-race marriages—there are so many examples that we can all draw upon to prove the point that marriage is a sacred institution but it is not immutable. It has changed in many, many ways over the centuries.
The third objection that I want to address goes to the issue of the separation of church and state. In summary, this objection is that the state has no right to interfere with or legislate in the area of religious rites. I think the best statement on this was made by Jesus Christ himself in that very famous dictum on the relationship between church and state: 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.' There is nothing that we are seeking to do in this private member's bill which would force a religious institution, a priest, a preacher or a church to solemnise a marriage where the solemnisation of that marriage is a breach of their religious beliefs. In fact, we are quite clear in this bill that there will be no requirement for a religious minister to solemnise such a marriage. What we are saying, however, is that we recognise the rights of churches to hold these beliefs and to practise their rites of marriage, as different as they may be in all the different churches and religious institutions in this country, but we as a government are not going to enforce those religious beliefs by the exclusion of one type of relationship from the definition of 'marriage'. In summary, we will render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. The state reserves for itself the right to recognise the marriages that it believes are in keeping with the norms of Australian society, without in any way interfering with the rights of religious institutions to practise their freedom of religion.
The fourth and final objection that has come up within both the parliamentary and extraparliamentary debate is what can best be described as a 'slippery slope' argument. Upon this argument, the contributions quite frankly have at times been quite ridiculous: the idea that if we make this change, which might on its face seem reasonable to its proponents and those who are swinging, we open the floodgates to recognition of all sorts of relationships as marriages—not just between man and woman but between human beings and non-human beings, as I have heard in another debate. Frankly, that is just a ridiculous proposition that no normal, right-thinking person would proffer in the course of a serious debate. But, to the extent that there is a feeling within the community that they might accept this change but for the fact that it might lead to something else that they do not support, I make this point: the ultimate bulwark between that which is acceptable and that which is not acceptable is the Parliament of Australia, which is founded upon the principle that we seek to represent the common sense of the great Australian people. I have great faith in the common sense of the great Australian people—perhaps more faith than many of those who proffer some of these ridiculous arguments.
I believe that views on this particular issue, marriage equality, have changed over the course of this debate but also over the course of the last few years, and the polling reflects that. In 2004, Newspoll conducted an extensive survey in which they found that at that point in time only 38 per cent of Australians supported marriage equality and same-sex marriages. If we wind the clock forward some seven years we find that, in 2011 when the Nielsen polling organisation conducted an extensive poll in the lead-up to the Australian Labor Party's national conference, in excess of 62 per cent of people polled said they do support same-sex marriage. So we can see that over a relatively short period of time in the history of this Federation opinions have changed. As Australians have focused upon the issues, focused upon the debates and looked at the objections, they have come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable objection to parliament moving to recognise marriages between same-sex couples.
I have no doubt that the majority of Australians are either not that focused on the issue or, to the extent that they are focused on it, they support it. I have no doubt about that. Against that backdrop, it disappoints me that we may not have enough votes in this parliament to reflect that view of the Australian people. As the member for Lyne has just said, perhaps it will take a new parliament to see a change to the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act. While the campaign for marriage equality has been won in the community it may not have yet been won in this parliament.
The debate has been interesting, and it has been a quality debate in this chamber. Over 40 members of the House have spoken on it, and roughly half of those are in favour of the private member's bill. I have had the time to examine some of the speeches of cabinet ministers who have spoken on the bill. I believe it is true to say that all of them have spoken in favour of this bill, so the bill has support in high places.
I believe that at some point in the next 10 years Australians are going to look back on this debate, perhaps as they attend a marriage between same-sex couples who are their friends, their sons, their daughters or their cousins—their relationships—and will wonder what all the fuss was about. I know that this change will occur within my lifetime. I hope that I am surprised when we vote upon this issue and the matter comes before the House. I hope that I am surprised, but at this point in time I do not think I will be.
So, in that vein I note that in the chamber today there are representatives of PFLAG, the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who have run a tremendous campaign, and representatives from Australian Marriage Equality as well. If we do not get enough votes in the parliament to get this changed after today, can I say in the words of a great Australian, 'Maintain your rage,' because this change will indeed come.
There is much more that could be said in this debate but I hope that I have fairly and reasonably summed up the debate, both the objections and the counter-objections to the proposition before the House. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)
I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Today I wish to highlight the achievements of athletes from my seat of Forrest who competed at the London Olympics. I congratulate each and every one of our athletes right across Australia. I recognise their hard work, their dedication, the countless hours on the road, the endless training sessions, the personal discipline, the sacrifice and passion to represent their country. Being selected to compete at the Olympics is a just reward for all of the athletes efforts.
Forrest is a regional and rural electorate of 12,500 square kilometres at least two or three plus hours from Perth itself, depending on where the athlete lives. For some of the athletes and their families it is hundreds of kilometres from top-level competition. What our athletes know is that the only way they can achieve in their athletic development, whether it is at a state, national or international level, is with the support of their equally dedicated families, their local communities, the veritable army of volunteers who run the sporting clubs and organisations, and their coaches. People need this level of support to help them fulfil their Olympic dreams.
For instance, dual Olympic basketballer Mark Worthington grew up in Australind just north of Bunbury. The 203-centimetre forward debuted in the green and gold in 2005 and has been in teams which have won two world championships and a Commonwealth games. The Boomers enjoyed several wins in London, including a thriller against the more fancied Russian team. They were eventually knocked out, despite a valiant effort against the USA Dream Team. Anybody who watched that game would understand when I say it was a valiant effort. It was the second time in a row that Australia had finished amongst the top eight teams in the Olympics. Throughout his career Mark has been strongly supported by his parents, Greg and Treena, his brother Trent, his sister Kate and of course his wife. South West Slammers coach Steve Hawkins has also played a pivotal role in Mark's career.
The south-west provided two Hockeyroos in the London Olympics, Kobie McGurk and Jayde Taylor. Kobie McGurk is from Collie and was competing in her second Olympics. Like most talented young athletes, Kobie shone in several sports before she focused on hockey. She has earned her reputation as one of the toughest defenders in the world. Kobie played in the final of the World Cup in Argentina in 2006. She won gold at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne in 2006, and has over 100 international caps. But none of this has come easily for Kobie. Like a lot of athletes Kobie has had to overcome injury and disappointment during her career. I acknowledge the determination and toughness that Kobie has shown to achieve at the highest level.
After five years on the national development squad, Jayde Taylor was making her last bid for Hockeyroo selection when she broke into the team two years ago. This was her Olympic debut. She had won a gold medal at the 2010 Commonwealth Games and, with her 25 international caps, Jayde is recognised for her intellect and composure in defence—critical if you are in a defensive position, certainly in hockey.
Lauren Reynolds originally came from the Bunbury BMX Club and was an inaugural South West Academy of Sport scholarship holder. Lauren actually found out she was going to the Olympics on the day she celebrated her 21st birthday. What a great present for a 21st birthday. It followed her continued success as an elite BMX rider which saw her finish in 2011 as Australia's top ranked female and in the top 10 in the world. The BMX events at the Olympics drew plenty of spectator interest and packed crowds saw Reynolds qualify ninth fastest in the trials. She unfortunately crashed out of contention but she was giving it her all in her third semi-final. What a great effort.
Bunbury's Alex Hagan was also an inaugural scholarship holder of the South West Academy of Sport. At the age of 21 Alex was one of the youngest members of the women's eight rowing team which came from nowhere in the qualifying regatta to book their spot at the Olympics. We all remember that. Alex had set her sights on rowing at the Rio de Janeiro games in 2016. The team and crew was put together only just months before the qualifying events for London. They basically thought they were not going to get to these Olympics in London and she was focusing on 2016. Next thing, the team was off to London. The team won the qualifying event and reached the final. What a great effort for such a recently formed team.
Chair of the South West Academy of Sport, Don Punch, CEO Bernice Butlion and the board were all really proud of both of these athletes for their selection in the Olympic team and they are equally proud of the support and the part the academy has played in providing real practical support for both of these young south-west Olympians. It is a real feather in the cap for everyone. Also competing at his first Olympics was Scott Sunderland from Busselton and the South West Cycle Club. He was a member of the men's three-man indoor cycling team sprint. His Olympics followed a world championship win with the team in Melbourne earlier this year in April. In a sport which is decided by thousandths of a second, his team came fourth to Germany in a bronze-medal ride-off.
We had Margaret River based archer Taylor Worth. He was Australia's only male archer competing in London. He had to overcome injury—like I said, so many of our athletes have so much to overcome—in 2010 to win the national championship. He was crowned the Australian Archer of the Year and has won a Commonwealth Games gold medal and a US Open individual gold medal. In London, Taylor was able to dispatch the world No. 1 when he stormed through to the final 16. The 21-year-old, who was ranked 44 in the world, had his dream ended by a Chinese competitor in a one-arrow tiebreaker. What a way to end your campaign!
In concluding, I want to mention our most prolific medal winner across both of the games: our middle-distance track Paralympian Brad Scott from Eaton. Brad was competing at his second Paralympics and won a silver medal in the 1,500 metres and a bronze medal in the 800 metres. I can see the members around the room smiling at this achievement. You would understand exactly what this means. Brad was also a silver medallist at the 2008 Beijing Paralympics and a silver medallist at the IPC Athletics World Championships. I know Brad is looking forward to competing in the 2016 games in Rio, and he told me even prior to going to London that his goal was to get to the gold medal position. He is going to continue his very strong competition with one of the athletes who continues to get the better of him. Brad will not give up and has promised to bring his medals in to show me. I cannot wait to hear what Brad has to say about his experiences in London. I am really looking forward to that.
The outstanding commitment to excellence shown by all of our athletes and their continuing goals, whether they are personal or team performances, are things all of us in this place admire and congratulate. We recognise and respect that. Their feats and endeavours have inspired people in their home towns—the little towns around my electorate. They watch the Olympics and the young children—and even those of us of a more mature age—are wishing that it was us out there. Whether it is athletics, cycling or any other form of athletic competition at the games, we are with our athletes the whole time and we celebrate with them. We understand and share their frustrations but we never question their commitment. We certainly know what can be achieved by their discipline and sacrifice, and they always give over and above.
The athletes are also the biggest endorsement for sporting participation, particularly in regional areas. As athletes have often said themselves, they have been lifted up on their journey with help from the parents and the people involved in grassroots sporting clubs, the hard yards when they are just young athletes, the people who come out in the rain and in the sun, and of course their parents, who initially are the encouragement. They encourage their children into sport. They are involved with their children's sports. They are mum and dad taxis. Day in and day out they do not complain. They want to give their children the best opportunity they can.
In my part of the world, as the children develop they become owned by the community as well as the parents, and everybody shares in what they do and achieve and shares in the disappointments. We see that constantly. We see parents who become drivers and personal coaches, who wave flags behind the goalposts and who help with injury recovery. The clubs that provide our children with sporting opportunities are only made possible by the dedicated countless hours of volunteering to the clubs from coaching and training to just washing the jumpers. Even if it is cutting oranges, no job is too big or too small.
I really want to thank and acknowledge all of those who support every athlete across this nation, not just our Olympians but even the little kids who are just having a lot of fun and who are inspired by those of our athletes like our Olympians who compete at the highest level. Above all, I hope the joy of sport and the opportunity for a happy, healthy pursuit encourages all of us to continue to enjoy sport in this nation. I salute all of our Olympic athletes.
The Illawarra region is a nursery for great sporting champions, including Olympic champions. I would like to take the opportunity today to extend my congratulations to one local champion: local kayaking champion and gold medallist Dave Smith, a member of the Australian men's K4 team that claimed gold in the 1,000-metre final by more than half a boat length. Dave is a resident of Warilla, which is a suburb of my electorate of Throsby in New South Wales, and is now fondly referred to by locals as the Warilla Wonder after the fantastic effort he displayed at the London games. It was a victory that was all the more sweet, I am sure, after narrowly missing out on a medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. As Dave says, 'A few years and memories have been erased.'
There was little doubt in the minds of the Illawarra locals that Dave and the team would achieve gold in London. He is a natural athlete. He started competing at little nippers at Warilla surf club at the age of six and was achieving success in surf-lifesaving, iron man and kayaking competitions at a national level by the age of 14. In 2001 he was named Shellharbour Junior Sports Star of the Year and went on to represent New South Wales in the Australian titles, placing first in the under-19s double ski in 2003.
By this stage it was clear that Dave was destined for bigger and better things and he got this chance in 2004 when he was selected to represent Australia at the junior world cup regatta, finishing just outside the medals in both the K1 and K4 1,000-metre events. He bounced back in 2006 at the Australian championships, winning the K2 1,000 metres and winning again in 2007 and 2008 in the K4 events. In fact, Dave is part of the current national championship team after winning his fourth overall title and third K4 in the event earlier this year. He has already achieved more than most of us back home could ever dream and we could not be more proud of him. I am sure I am not alone in my anticipation of the 2016 games, where we will have the great opportunity to cheer our local hero, the Warilla Wonder, to another golden victory.
Dave's contributions to the Olympics are well celebrated, but there are many other people from the Illawarra that I would like to make mention of. They are the people who form the teams and also the people who give up their own time go to referee in some of these Olympic events, and I pay tribute at this moment to their contributions as well.
I rise to acknowledge the great triumph of one of the golden girls of the Gold Coast, a local resident of Helensvale and a resident of the fighting electorate of Fadden: Sally Pearson. Sally, of course, won gold with a new Olympic record time of 12.35 seconds in the hurdles, beating American Dawn Harper, with 12.37—two-hundredths of a second—and Kelly Wells, with 12.48 seconds, both personal bests. It is an outstanding result from a young girl who has worked so hard through her life. Many may not realise it, but Sally was raised by single mum Anne, who worked her guts out—worked two jobs—just to make enough money to support her daughter's athletic career. She attended Helensvale State High School, where my wife was a teacher, and was part of their excellence in sport program. It is a great program that the school runs to identify, encourage and support high-quality, high-calibre athletes.
While still in primary school and just eight years of age Sally's talents were noticed by Sharon Hannan, who remains her coach today. Sally rose to prominence in 2001, 14 years old, when she won the Australian under-20 100-metre title. She made her debut at the 2003 World Youth Championships in Canada, and won gold in the 100-metre hurdles.
At the beginning of the following athletics season after the 2010 Commonwealth Games, she became the first Australian woman ever to win three national titles at the same event since Pam Kilborn did so back in 1968 when she won the 100 metres, the 200 metres and 100-metre hurdles. In November 2011 the International Association of Athletics Federations awarded Sally Pearson the 2011 Athlete of the Year. She is the first Australian to receive this award, and she also received prize money of $98,800. I think this is fabulous from the girl who battled with her single mum so that she could run.
Coming into the 2012 London Olympics for the 100-metre hurdles she had won 32 races from a staggering 34 starts. She led the competition after round 1 heats, and led coming into the final with a semi-final time of 12.39. And, of course, she has the new Olympic record of 12.35.
Sally embodies all that is great about the human spirit and all that is great about sport, not only as an equaliser but as an opportunity to rise above your odds. It does not matter how you were born or where you were born; the circumstances you come from are not limiting—we only limit ourselves. What matters is how we finish: that is, how we run, and that is how we race—the manner and spirit in which we race. And it is the dignity and the humility in which we accept victory. I think Sally embodies all of that and more. She is truly a great Australian and worthy of special recognition and notice in the House of Representatives this morning.
The London Olympic Games of 2012 will live for a long time in our collective memories. At a time of conflict, and with economies in peril, Great Britain set aside these trials and was heroically triumphant in the face of doubters. It showed the world that there is much to celebrate.
For the first time in Olympic history women were included in every team, with three nations including female athletes for the very first time. Women competed more widely than ever before. Countries that have endured conflict in recent times found teams and joined the rest of the world to play games and to engage with each other. At the height of its conflict and all of the misery that battle delivers so cruelly and indiscriminately, Syria found 10 athletes from seven disciplines and transported them from war to participate in the enduring goal of the Olympic movement of building friendship and understanding through sporting engagement.
London, which has so often been the beacon of light in world leadership in dark times, shed its burdens and lifted the British spirit. The British people, reinvigorated, can now face adversity with new energy and optimism to triumph. And there we were, Australia, a small country whose national character is so defined by our love of sports. This is born from playing and competing, and the recognition of those who excel from our midst—those greats who we uphold as an ideal reflection of us. It is our sporting heroes who we hold up the highest: the Don, Evonne, Phar Lap, Rosewall, Elliott, Murray Rose and so many more maintain that special place in Australia's heart. How is it possible for leaders like Menzies, Chifley, Hollows or Howard to compare?
How do other countries define their greatness or national character? Where do Winston Churchill or Francis Drake sit with their great footballer, Stanley Matthews, or their three-time Wimbledon winner, Fred Perry, or Roger Bannister, the first man to break four minutes? The US is defined more by Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John Kennedy and Martin Luther King than Mickey Mantle, Jesse Owens or Babe Ruth. Yes, more than anything else we hold our sporting greats in the highest esteem.
However, just as the official creed extols participation, the most important thing in the Olympic Games has been the underlying benefits to our society that most justify our fascination with sport. We have learned that nothing comes without hard work. The messages of sportsmanship: playing the rules, health, mateship, teamwork, responsibility for your actions and the flow-on of benefits from social interaction have been the values that serve as the bedrock from where our greats have come. Through endless competitions we have learnt that victory is a fleeting thing, and that when you lose there will always be another day.
This is the school that produces our best sports people, our nation's most esteemed representatives. During the two weeks of the Olympic Games we saw a man with no legs run, women compete in their hijabs and small island nations triumph over superpowers. The world took time out to marvel at athletes who could transform into an art form a sport that is so difficult just to play. In these two weeks that happen every four years the world becomes a better place. Our athletes who have participated with us and excelled at local levels, then state level, and now as national representatives have been worthy and a true reflection of us. They have trained hard, completed with their all, and displayed the full range of emotions that is normal when so much effort has been invested and the final result must be accepted. Win or lose, modest in victory or not, graceful in defeat or not, they have been our chosen representatives—a reflection of us and of our society. We should be proud of our representatives and the role they have played in making our world a better place through this sporting engagement.
Anyone who judges our participation in these Olympics by the medal count does not understand the true value of sport or the great Olympic movement. In these statements we celebrate 410 Australian athletes who went to London, from 16-year-old Brittany Broben to the slightly less young Mary Hanna, and from those who faltered at the first heat to those who sang our anthem on the dais. We applaud and thank every parent, carer and friend who has been an orange cutter, weekend taxi driver, amateur referee or coach, or just provided a clean pair of socks—you are all part of the Olympic team that we celebrate today.
The energy gained from those athletes and those great two weeks in London reinvigorated all of us for the Paralympic Games that started two weeks later. It is with some amusement that I note Channel 4's billboard advertisement placed next to London Olympic Stadium after the closing ceremony, which simply read, 'Thanks for the warm-up.' The world's Paralympic athletes certainly delivered, displaying superhuman abilities as they inspired all with the manner in which they have successfully overcome life's toughest challenges. There is no more powerful symbol of the importance of participation than the sight of Paralympic athletes achieving such incredible feats of strength, fitness, skill and endurance. For these athletes, their journey to London is surely the greatest achievement, and the rest is, more or less, just a game.
Over 300 Australians represented us and made us proud, just as those 410 Olympians did in the prior games. As policymakers, we can only hope that the achievements of all of our Olympic and Paralympic heroes can drive us all, across all generations, towards the enduring benefits of participation and to those core values that have made our sportspeople most esteemed of all Australians. More than any gold, silver or bronze, this is the goal of our nation's representatives and is, in fact, our greatest sporting achievement.
I join with others to honour the contribution of all those who represented our country at the London Olympic Games. Every four years, as we know, the world stops to look in awe and to watch in wonder at the athletic achievements of those who meet in the modern Olympics. But, as others have said, it is not just about the question of those who win medals. One of the great things about the Olympics is the fact that it brings the world together in peace to celebrate the very best aspects of the human spirit. When we look at that and we look at the question of the athletes and their achievements, we ought to focus on the fact that that is what it is about: it is about competing, it is about doing your best and it is about being part of a great international event.
The dedication of athletes in terms of the sacrifice that they make at a personal level in order to be able to get to the Olympics is absolutely phenomenal, and we know that many have given up so much in order that they can be there once every four years. But we also know that it is not just about the athletes; it is also about their families, the volunteers who are involved in local sporting clubs, those who take the invidious role of being an official, which often puts them into a difficult situation for those who are competing, and those who are administrators. All of them are part of that broader Olympic family. All of them are part of that great tradition that comes together every four years. In the sacrifice that is made by families—whether it be playing the taxi service, getting up at ungodly hours to assist those getting ready to train, or dealing with the bruises that come from getting out there and doing it as hard as you can—there is much to remember and it is not just about what happens on the day. But what happens on the day is the focus when you get to the Olympics. Frankly, we can be very proud of the efforts of those who represented our country on this occasion. Many won medals. Many made finals. Many did their very best, and that is what it is all about.
The nature of those competitions is that it is small countries; it is big countries; it is everybody out there having a go; and in all circumstances our people did the best that they could, and that best was very good. They were great representatives of Australia and also great representatives of local communities throughout this country—local communities who are justifiably proud. They are in themselves as Olympians very much seen to be representatives of the very best that people should aspire to; in that way they are role models for their broader community, and most have most definitely been role models of great significance.
As others have mentioned, following on from the Olympics was the Paralympics. The Paralympians are in so many ways absolutely inspiring—often dealing with disabilities of a significant nature, but who are prepared to do everything they can to prove that they can be everything that they can be. Their achievements were phenomenal. Their example is exemplary. We all salute them for their efforts and for their struggle. So to all those involved in the Olympics and the Paralympics I say: well done. Your achievements are significant. You ought to be very proud. We are very proud of you.
Earlier this week I had the opportunity to congratulate our Australian Paralympic team for their success in this chamber. Now we have the opportunity to congratulate our Australian Olympic team. One of our greatest Australian athletes, Herb Elliott, once said:
It is the inspiration of the Olympic Games that drives people not only to compete but to improve, and to bring lasting spiritual and moral benefits to the athlete and inspiration to those lucky enough to witness the athletic dedication.
We have certainly witnessed our athletes' dedication during the London Olympic Games and, regardless of whether or not they won, it is their passion and courage that inspires us all to work hard to achieve our dreams.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate two of my constituents: Samantha Reid from Tanah Merah and Lyndsie Fogarty from Shailer Park for their outstanding contribution to the London Olympic Games. Samantha Reid was part of the Australian Olympic team that secured sixth place at the Spanish open synchronised swimming competition in Madrid in July. They had hoped for a similar result, a top-six position at the London Olympics; however, they were not as successful as they hoped and unfortunately finished last in the technical routine and in the free routine. But it is not so much where they finished as the fact that they got out there, competed and did their best on the day. It was a great achievement to have been selected to represent our nation in synchronised swimming, and I am very proud of her efforts.
Lyndsie Fogarty, a local kayaker, won bronze in the K4 500-metre sprint event at the Beijing Olympics; however, she just missed out at this year's London Games. It was a fantastic achievement to have made the semifinals in the K4 500-metre sprint and to have placed fourth in the B final of the K2 500-metre events.
Kimberley Park State School—one of the schools in my electorate—would be very proud of their former student Mitchell Watt, who is considered one of Logan's greatest success stories at the games. Mitchell Watt jumped 8.16 metres in the long jump to secure silver at the games, which was a welcome addition to the overall performance of our track and field athletes.
A few weeks ago I attended a welcome home ceremony for the Gold Coast Olympians. My electorate covers parts of both the Logan City Council and the Gold Coast City Council, and I felt very honoured to have been invited to attend the ceremony. From just going around the room and meeting those Olympians, I know we are certainly blessed as a community but more so as a nation, by the wonderful and talented athletes in Logan and the Gold Coast. As a nation we tend to pose huge expectations on our Olympians and, despite not winning the official medal tally for the London Olympic Games, there is always a way to celebrate the success of our Olympic team.
In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, statistician Brian Dawes formulated the only true and just statistical representation of Olympic medal performance. Dawes calls it the MAP methodology:
Based on a crafty combination of medals won, athletes in your team and your country's population, I am pleased to advise that the real winner of the London Olympics is Australia!
Using the formula of medals won multiplied by athletes in your team divided by home count population, here are the top four: Australia 632, Great Britain 565, Hungary 268 and Russia 250. Team USA only scored 175 and China only 23. However, as the founder of the International Olympic Committee Pierre de Coubertin once said:
The important thing in life is not victory but combat; it is not to have vanquished but to have fought well.
There are a number of ways to look at our success in the London Olympic Games, but I believe that the real winners are those who dedicate so much of their time to their sport, to being good role models for our younger generations and to being great ambassadors for our country. The satisfaction of inspiring others to live their dreams and represent this country at an international level is, in itself, worth its weight in gold, medal or no medal.
Later in the year I will be holding a ceremony for our local sporting champions. I will be congratulating young sporting champions such as Rachael Harcombe, Gemma Brinkman, Jack Goodsell, Blake Cearns, Skye Nicolson, Nevyn Livingstone, Angela Beard, Lizaya Iti, Samuel Jones, Joshua Tierney, Jake Greusmuhl, Tamara Tisdall, Jake Otago, Nicolas Preston-Smith, Frederyk Woodhouse and the Sarah Atkins Netball team. Each time I meet one of these aspiring young sportsmen or sportswomen, I believe in their ability to be the best they can be. These are young men and women who are already competing at a state or national level in their chosen sport and may very well be our future Olympians. I say well done to the Australian Olympic team and I wish all the best for those who aspire to take part in the next Olympic Games in Rio in Brazil in four years' time.
I would like to join in congratulating those Australian athletes who brought great honour to our country by their success at the Olympics and the Paralympics. To win an Olympic gold medal or for that matter any medal is a crowning achievement of a sporting life. All of the athletes who succeed at international level have worked for decades to develop their talent and have reached the pinnacle of their sport. The Paralympics results were an extraordinary success for our country. Our fifth place in the Paralympics erased some of the disappointment that was around about Australia achieving only tenth place on the medal tally at the Olympics. However, it needs to be acknowledged that in most sports Australia achieved around expectations.
Our tenth was certainly a credible result, but it was not up to Australia's previous achievements and there has been some criticism and soul-searching about why Australia's performances were below our expectation. Of course, there should be. It is appropriate that after a major event of this nature we look at how we can do better. There has been criticism of coaches and funding—that there was not enough funding, that there were too many officials there, there was too much hype and perhaps even unjustified expectations. One constituent wrote to me, drawing attention to the fact that we do not provide substantial financial rewards to our successful athletes. This person drew attention to Singapore, where apparently there is a $1 million reward offered to anyone who can win a gold medal. To be fair, Singapore has never won a gold medal in Olympic history and so I guess for them it would be a special prize, but it also demonstrates that money is not what delivers sporting success—it is dedication and commitment.
It is appropriate that there be a thorough examination of how our team was prepared, what our reasonable expectations for the future are, if the level of funding is appropriate and what we need to do to make sure we do as well as we can at the next Olympics. We have a tradition of excellence in sport and our achievements on the sporting field very much inspire our country. Those results are just as important to us as succeeding in business or economics—if we do well on the sports field we feel proud of ourselves as a nation.
Perhaps we need to look more fundamentally at why there was some disappointment with our Olympic results. I would like to read an extract from a letter to the editor in my local newspaper from a Mr Phil Enright from River Heads. He said:
The sad fact is that for decades, our nation has been losing its work ethic and intensity, instead placing the weight of expectation on our athletes to produce gold at the Olympics so we may continue to delude ourselves we are a nation of hard-working, high achievers—the opposite of whom we have become.
I suggest our athletes' achievements reflect our own more than we might like to admit.
If we want our athletes to commit intensely to a work ethic of excellence and high achievement, we must commit to those values as a nation. We must stop championing mediocrity, rewarding any 'achievement', and the view of entitlement that we can be guaranteed the things we want, just because we are fortunate to be born in the lucky country.
The Olympic Games is a great leveller, and a reminder that spin is no substitute for serious commitment.
The answer is not more money but the right values and the leadership to commit to them as a nation …
Mr Enright has made a very powerful point. If we want to be critical of our athletes, perhaps we also ought to look at ourselves. Our lifestyle has changed in quite dramatic ways over the years. Perhaps the major Olympic disappointment was our results in the swimming pool. Swimming is a sport which requires an enormous commitment, and not just from the athletes who participate; many of them begin their swimming careers at a very young age and they depend on their parents to take them to the pool to train before dawn every day. It is a huge commitment, not just from teenagers and children but also from their parents. In this day and age, many families are two-income families, and there are fly-in fly-out parents. Children spend a lot of time in childcare centres and after-school care and do not have parents available to drive them to the pool or who have time to take them to competitions. Then there are the costs to be met in the early years before they might qualify for sponsorship. It is a fact that our lifestyle is changing our commitment to sport, and if we want to criticise our athletes I think we need also to look at ourselves and our lifestyle.
There are real issues confronting our sporting community. We can be very proud of our athletes, who have represented us with great distinction. In reviewing our athletes' performance we need to remember the enormous personal commitment that they have made in a changing world, when it is a lot harder to make that commitment than it might have been in previous times. I congratulate those whose success brought honour to our country at the Olympics and the Paralympics, and we wish them well for the future.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this, our parliament's recognition of our athletes' tremendous performance at the Olympics. I, like many Australians, was astounded by how good these Olympics were. I give full credit to the UK and London for hosting a tremendous games from the very start. The opening ceremony was one of the best opening ceremonies you could ever have witnessed, demonstrating the full breadth of creativity and ingenuity within the London organising committee and within the UK. It was just tremendous to see them put on that opening ceremony.
I had an opportunity to see Lord Coe when he was here in Australia. He visited Parliament House and gave an update to parliamentarians on the progress of the games, and he has been here a number of times. He is a truly impressive individual and deserves full credit for how well those games went. He is a fantastic individual. I do not think there has been an Olympic Games in living memory where there has not been something that has potentially been a dark cloud on the horizon. It really is a test of how you recover from that, and certainly I thought Lord Coe managed it magnificently and was able to demonstrate that these are not insurmountable hurdles; they are things that you just have to deal with and move on from.
So it certainly was a pleasure to be able to see over the course of those great days back in July and August how well the games were run. In particular, they gave a platform and venue for our athletes to shine. I want to pick up on the comments from the member for Wide Bay, because it was a subject of discussion about our performance relative to years gone past. This is a discussion that could have changed in a nanosecond. In some cases the difference between gold and silver—and that is what we are talking about here—was only a matter of milliseconds. But those milliseconds need to be taken in the context of the huge amount of time that our athletes dedicate—not just themselves and the people around them but their families too—to ensuring that they are at their peak performance. It is a huge contribution that is made.
Like other members who have spoken through this debate, I also want to celebrate some achievements of locals who have been able to participate in these games. In particular, I want to talk about Olympian Beki Lee from Mount Druitt, in the electorate of Chifley. She is 25 and grew up in Mount Druitt. She smashed her personal best at the London Games. Then, on top of that—you could not get any better—she accepted a marriage proposal to boot from her boyfriend, Dan Smith, at the finish line. So it was a fantastic string of events for her. As an Indigenous woman representing Australia at the games, she occupies a special place in the hearts of many, particularly in my electorate, where so many people are proud of their Aboriginal ancestry and history. It was just fantastic to see how well she did at these games and particularly all the things that she can look forward to in married life. Beki had identified with former Olympic gold medallist Cathy Freeman as someone who had inspired her, and now she will in her own way inspire others to do great things. So congratulations from all the residents of the Chifley electorate to Beki and Dan on their future life together.
I would not be able to speak in this special moment within parliament without recognising the efforts in a sport that I have a particular passion for, basketball. Both the Boomers and the Opals in these games were up against exceptionally tough competitors but excelled themselves magnificently. I want to quickly run through, in particular, some of the efforts of both teams, the Boomers and the Opals. The Boomers in the end went down to Team USA, the Dream Team, the team that Kobe Bryant said would have bested the 1992 team, the original Dream Team. I think there is a degree of merit in Kobe Bryant's sentiments there, though I have to say that at the time I was a bit sceptical. But the Boomers held their own against the team that had devastated so many other national teams. The undefeated Americans led through the course of the game, but the Boomers kept going. In particular, in the second half there was some inspiring play from 'Patty' Mills, an Indigenous player who has been a representative of our country in the NBA in America, playing for Portland, and who shows the world how good the depth of talent is in the Australian basketball community. Patty Mills, I might add, had the opportunity to meet President Obama last year and, on walking towards him, President Obama exclaimed, 'Now this is a man with speed!' So even President Obama has recognised the explosive talent Patty Mills has. And it is not just talent that is directed on the court but talent that is mindful of what needs to be done in the community. Patty Mills is an absolute role model for others in the community, and he is trying to be a role model not just for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids across the country but also for those who want to follow in his footsteps in the game of basketball.
While they went down to the US, we saw some fantastic games from the Boomers. In the game with Great Britain, Patty Mills scored 39 points. There were some tough games against Spain. The Boomers won in an upset against Russia, a team that, particularly in Andrei Kirilenko, had some pretty seasoned athletes. Then they went on to face some pretty tough talent in the US team.
The Boomers have a stack of great players but I want to point out in particular the efforts of an up-and-comer in Matthew Dellavedova, who is the next great thing on the horizon for Australian basketball. He plays in college basketball in the States. I saw him play in the qualifiers against New Zealand. He has incredible defensive skills, being able to shut down opponents, and he stepped up in the Olympics. The great thing about the Olympics is that they give players the opportunity to shine at unexpected moments, and he certainly took up that opportunity. Coach Brett Brown is an assistant coach in the NBA in America, with the San Antonio Spurs, so again we have Australians excelling over there in one of the prime basketball competitions in the world. We need to thank Brett Brown for all his efforts with the team.
I have a soft spot for the Opals, as many people do. We saw Lauren Jackson rightfully being the flag bearer for our Olympic team in the opening ceremony. She is humble off court but a fierce competitor on court. Lauren Jackson has been recognised as one of the world's best players. She hit the record books by breaking the Olympic scoring record for women's basketball. She hit a jumper, with three minutes 46 remaining, in the team's win over China that gave her an impressive 536 points scored in Olympics, one more than former Brazilian star Janeth Arcain in her Olympic total. Lauren Jackson finished London on a 575-career-point high. That is a tremendous recognition of effort. We saw another up-and-comer in Liz Cambage, who has played for Tulsa in the WNBA in America and has come back to Australia to play with Bulleen. She became the first woman in an Olympic event to slam dunk, causing a sensation by doing so. She has just celebrated her 21st birthday and has a huge future ahead of her.
In that talented Opals team I want to pay particular attention to coach Carrie Graf. In Australia, she coaches the Canberra Capitals and has been tremendous in guiding the women's team. I have huge admiration and respect for her. She is not afraid to make some tough calls, particularly when she feels that players could be doing better. That is a sign of a true leader. I want to congratulate her and the Opals on the way they have performed.
While the Boomers and the Opals did not get to where they wanted to, they held their heads up high on the world stage. It is worth noting that in a sport that is No. 2 globally, played in 213 countries, we are in the top three. Within Australia a million men and women play the game, and they would all be proud to see the way our national team performed. While talking about the Olympics here I cannot overlook the performance of two special Paralympians that I am exceptionally proud of, and I think a lot of others would share the sentiment. I know we did have an opportunity to talk about the Paralympics earlier but I want to make special reference to these two people as I did not have an opportunity to speak in that earlier debate. In particular, I want to recognise Kylie Gauci from Rooty Hill. Kylie was on the Aussie Gliders women's basketball team in the Paralympics. They went down in the gold medal match. They claimed the silver against Germany, and Kylie was an inspiration for the Gliders. She led the scoring charge with 15 points and five assists, and through Twitter she was getting a lot of feedback from excited fans about her efforts over there. She was an absolute credit to us and I am looking forward to catching up with Kylie on her return and personally congratulating her for her efforts with that team.
The Rollers, the men's basketball team, also went down but charged all the way through the competition. Again, they can also hold their heads up high. It is worth noting that here in Australia we have both the National Wheelchair Basketball League and the women's WMBL. The National Wheelchair Basketball League has been going for quarter of a century, and the women's competition for 13 years. They have become an incubator for the Rollers and Glider players, and they have strong state and national programs providing young athletes with access to expert coaching and training facilities. I just want to give a shout out to both the Rollers and the Gliders for making us all proud of their incredible efforts.
The final person I want to recognise is someone that I have had a lot to do with, and whom I think is an absolute credit to not only the local community but also to our nation, and that is Jayme Richardson-Paris, a cyclist from Quakers Hill. I got to see a truly moving video of Jayme. Her first moments of life were some of her most challenging. She really had to put on a brave battle to be able to get through. Her family rallied around her and have been a constant source of support. She won bronze in these Paralympics after getting into the sport, from my recollection, only in 2004. She was able to show with determination matched with her own innate skill how far she could go. She is a graduate of the Doonside Technology High School. She went back to her high school and I was able to be there with her back in late July before she set off for London. She attended Doonside Technology High from 2002 until 2008. Jayme was born with Cerebellar Ataxia which is a disorder that basically impacts on the coordination, balance and eye movements. She is able to overcome that and participate in cycling in a way that stands her in fantastic stead. She suffered a bout of ataxia during her first two laps at the velodrome, which sent her arms into uncontrollable spasms and shook the bike, but again, demonstrating that fighting ability, she overcame that and went on to take bronze in the C1. This is someone who broke her second C1 world record in as many races with a time of 40.476 seconds. She was recently married to her husband Ashley, and her family and all her supporters have been just overwhelmed by her successes. I would like to give the chamber a sense of the humility of this athlete.
She thanked her fans, in the local Blacktown Advocate, for all the support she received. I would like to read her moving comments into the Hansard:
'I can't wait to get home so I can share it with all of you and don't forget it's not my medal or my result, it's our medal and our results,' she said.
'It's Blacktown's, it Woodcroft Plaza's, it's everyone I run into in Blacktown Westpoint, it's all my nan's friends at the Blacktown Workers, it's Doonside High School's, it's Jasper Road's, it's postcode 2763.'
She is just a truly humble athlete. Again, a lot of our athletes are so humble and so willing to give of themselves, but they are also fierce competitors, showing the rest of the world that the Australian teams and athletes who play on the world stage cannot be taken for granted, because they have such a huge fighting spirit.
I commend all the athletes for their efforts. I want to pay particular attention to their families and friends, who also give of themselves, and while they might not be on the podium they have a right to share in that success.
Briefly, I would like to add my comments on the 2012 Olympic Games to the record. First of all, I would like to congratulate the City of London on the fantastic job that they did of hosting the event. Second, I want to speak about the efforts of our Olympians generally. A lot was said about their results, and I found myself wondering how a result that is a fraction of a second slower than the gold medal performance can be seen as a failure. When you get that close to being the best in the world, everyone should be very proud. In general terms, I think the Olympics are great for not only Australian pride but also highlighting the importance of sport and an active lifestyle. So I compliment the team on that.
But what I really want to speak about today is someone from the Parkes electorate, a young man that I know personally—a young Aboriginal man from Moree by the name of Cameron Hammond. Cameron Hammond is one of the most respectful, polite and inspiring young men that I have had the opportunity to meet. He is a boxer in the welterweight division and competed in that division in London. Cameron started his boxing career in Moree. I would also like to pay tribute to his coach, Danny Cheetham, who has mentored and trained Cameron—and Cameron actually lived in Danny's home for a lot of that time. He has been a real inspiration to Cameron, I know. Cameron has spent quite a bit of time at the Australian Institute of Sport as well.
As a son of Moree Cameron has made the entire community incredibly proud. Indeed, yesterday, students from Moree East Public School were in Parliament House, and they were telling me how proud they were that one of their number was an Olympian. Through Cameron's efforts, these young people can see that it does not matter where you grow up or in what circumstances; if you apply yourself, if you set goals for yourself and if you work hard, you can mix it with the best in the world.
Cameron won his first fight, defeating Nigerian boxer Moustapha Abdoulaye Hima 13-6 in his preliminary round on day 2 of the London Olympics. In the next round, he faced up to Canadian Custio Clayton but was unfortunately defeated 14-11 in that bout. But I think what really sums up Cameron are some of the messages he posted on his Facebook page—he is one of my Facebook friends—after that loss, and I will read out a couple. He wrote:
Well I lost my fight :( Sorry everyone! He was a good fighter, very strong. No excuses about the loss. But I made the top 16 in the world and now I'm an Olympian for life. It definitely has been the best experience of my life. So proud to represent my country and my culture at the Olympics. Thank you so much to everyone that has been supporting me yous have been great. Can't wait to see you all when I get back to Australia. Now just go and enjoy London and do some sight seeing.
And a couple of days later:
Well, that's it. The Olympics are finished! It's a little emotional :(
I enjoyed myself here, had so much fun. Proud to be here representing my country and culture. Gotta say the opening and closing ceremony were amazing! I didn't get a medal like I wanted to but I tried my best. London Olympics 2012 was the best experience of my life so thank you to everyone that helped and supported me. Leaving tonight and will be back in Australia Wednesday!
Olympian for life :)
I think that sums up the Olympic spirit. Cameron Hammond, who grew up on the streets of Moree and is a fine young man, has had the experience of his life. I think, with Cameron's case, that the Olympics is the start of Cameron's career and not the finish.
I rise today to speak on behalf of the Ryan electorate in congratulating the Australian Olympic team on their success at the recent London Olympic Games.
London was an ideal host city for the 2012 Olympic Games, with well-equipped venues for the world's best athletes and fantastic weather for the competition. I join with the member for Chifley, who commented on the outstanding organisation led by Lord Sebastian Coe, who was not only a great organiser but also a great ambassador for the Olympics.
We should all be very proud of each and every one of Australia's athletes and their efforts in London. As a combined team they delivered seven gold medals, 16 silver medals and 12 bronze medals, ensuring that Australia finished 10th out of 204 nations. This is a wonderful achievement for our nation—particularly given some of the other top 10 countries, including the host nation and the traditional powerhouses of the United States of America, Russia and China.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognise some of the outstanding athletes from the Ryan electorate who contributed to our successful Olympic campaign. In fact, the Ryan electorate added seven medals to Australia's haul. Cate Campbell was part of the golden 4 x 100-metre freestyle relay team. Fellow swimmer Christian Sprenger brought home silver in the men's 100-metre breast stroke and was also a member of the winning men's 4 x 100 medley relay team. I recently saw Christian's mother, Sharon, at the Brookfield Uniting Church community market's day. Understandably, she was very proud and delighted with her son's success.
Another teammate of Christian's is Bronte Barratt, who took out bronze in the 200-metre women's freestyle and who was a member of the women's 4 x 200-metre freestyle relay, which was awarded silver. Sophie Smith and Bronwen Knox were members of the women's water polo team, which took out bronze, and meanwhile, Mitchell Watt took out silver in the long jump.
I would also like to congratulate Mitch Larkin, who was a finalist in the men's 200-metre backstroke, and our young canoeists Alex Haase and Jake Donaghey, who made the men's canoe double C2 100-metre final. Alex is trained by Mr Kevin Crisp, who has been coaching canoeists at Nudgee Junior College in Ryan and other young people around Brisbane for many years.
I am also pleased to recognise a number of athletes from the Ryan electorate who took on the world's best in their chosen fields at the Olympics. Track cyclist Michael Hepburn, diver James Connor, swimmer Kenrick Monk, synchronised swimmer Francesca Owen, volleyball player Andrew Grant, and water polo player Rhys Howden. We are all extremely proud of these athletes, and on behalf of the entire Ryan electorate I congratulate them on their outstanding efforts at this year's Olympic Games and wish them well in the lead-up to Rio 2016.
Naturally, I would like to congratulate all the winners of the Australian medals and say how well our Australian team did. However, at the end of the day, the true Olympic spirit is not about winning, nor is it about medal tallies. The Olympic Games Charter states that the Olympics are:
… a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
The charter continues:
The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.
Therefore, for me the true inspiration that embodies the ideal and the meaning behind the Olympic charter is not that of Usain Bolt, nor Michael Phelps, nor Sally Pearson, nor any of the other Australian games winners. For me the true inspiration that embodies the ideal behind the meaning of the Olympic charter at the summer 2012 Olympic Games is Oscar Pistorius, the blade runner, the man who became the first amputee runner to compete at the Olympic Games next to able-bodied athletes.
Oscar Pistorius was born on 22 November 1986 in Johannesburg, South Africa, with a congenital absence of the fibula in both legs. When he was just 11 months old both his legs were amputated halfway between his knees and his ankles. Pistorius credits his late mother, who died at the age of 42 when he was just 15 years old, as a major influence on his life. Before his mother died she wrote him a letter, just before the amputation of his lower legs when he was only 11 months old, for him to read later in life as an adult. The letter stated, and these are words that we should all learn from: 'The real loser is never the person who crosses the finishing line last. The real loser is the person who sits on the side, the person who does not even try to compete.'
For Pistorius, his Olympic appearance was the culmination of years of fighting just to compete. Pistorius not only had to overcome the disability of having both legs amputated; he also had to fight the bureaucracy of the International Association of Athletics Federations to have the simple right to compete against able-bodied athletes. In 2007 the International Association of Athletics Federations banned Pistorius from competing in able-bodied competitions. But Pistorius did not take no for an answer and he pursued them all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, simply seeking the opportunity to compete.
For any able-bodied person who has played any sport, the notion that a man without legs could have some type of advantage over his able-bodied rivals to compete is an affront to our common sense. A man without legs does not have the muscles to explode out of the starting block at the same rate as other runners, and a man without legs cannot lean forward and run aerodynamically, as other runners can, due to the fact that his artificial legs force him to stand more upright. But thankfully common sense prevailed and Pistorius was successful in his appeal. He won his legal battle against the sport's ruling body in 2008, after the court of arbitration ruled his carbon fibre blades did not give him any unfair advantage.
Pistorius is quoted as saying of his legal battle for the simple right to compete:
My focus throughout this appeal has been to ensure that disabled athletes be given the chance to compete and compete fairly with able-bodied athletes.
Having won that battle, Pistorius's next battle was to train, to try and achieve the qualification standard for the games and be selected for the South African team. History shows he was successful in that.
For the record, Pistorius competed in the 2012 London Olympics and in the first heat of the 400 metres he finished second with a time of 45.44 seconds, his personal best for the season, and advanced to the semifinals. In the semifinals he finished eighth and last. He was also a member of the South African four by 400 metres relay team, an event in which he eventually finished eighth out of a field of nine in the final on 10 August, with Pistorius running the final leg in 45.9 seconds.
Although Pistorius did not even look like winning a medal, he achieved something far, far more important. He lifted the aspirations of tens of thousands of disabled sportsmen, and that is enough to assure him his place in Olympic history. His continued advocacy for disabled people by setting the example and showing that anything is possible will no doubt help inspire children that through sheer grit and determination they can turn any disadvantage into an opportunity. But his message is also for us all. When we are faced with any adversity, through hard work, sheer grit and determination we can overcome significant odds. To the extent that the Olympics are about showing the world what a human being is capable of and that as humans we will not accept limits, that extraordinary athlete Oscar Pistorius was the true giant of the London Olympics.
I rise also to pay tribute to the 410 talented and committed members of the Australian 2012 London Olympics team. I would also like to thank the families, the coaches, the volunteers and the team staff for their commitment and support of our outstanding Olympians. The calibre of our Australian Olympic athletes, coupled with their attitude and excellent sportsmanship, makes me proud to be Australian. The Northern Territory—which I talk about quite often in here; in fact, every time I speak I talk about the Northern Territory—has an excellent track record when it comes to sporting ability and we have a solid history of producing Olympic athletes. I would like to share some of the previous Olympic talent that we have had from the Northern Territory.
Our very first Olympian was the late Michael Ah Matt, who was selected to play basketball for Australia at the Tokyo Olympics in 1964 and, again, in Mexico in 1968. Michael was the first Indigenous person to represent Australia and was deservedly inducted into the Australian Basketball Hall of Fame in 2010—
A division having been called the House of Representatives—
S itting s uspended from 12:21 to 12:51
As I was saying, Darwin born softball catcher Kerry Dienelt trained at the Northern Territory Institute of Sport before she went on to captain the Australian women's softball team, which claimed bronze at both the Atlanta and Sydney Olympics. Then there was Darwin born Frank Farina, who was selected to play soccer for Australia at the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul. Then we have Darwin born and Northern Territory Institute of Sport trained swimmer Ian Vander-Wal, who was selected as part of the Atlanta 1996 Olympic Games team.
Silver and bronze medallist swimmer Geoff Huegill was born in Nhulunbuy and has represented Australia at two Olympics Games. Darwin born and dual gold medallist cyclist Graeme Brown also represented Australia and the Northern Territory at the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Olympics. Shot-putter Justin Anlezark, who was born in Katherine, was selected for the Australian Olympic team in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
At Sydney's 2000 Olympics, the Northern Territory was extremely proud to have three representatives selected for the Australian Olympic team in the men's boxing: Darwin born Paul Miller, Alice Springs born James Swan and Northern Territory Institute of Sport trained Henry Collins. Pistol shooter Christine Trefry trained at the Northern Territory Institute of Sport before she also went on to represent Australia at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
Further to the previous athletes I mentioned that have represented not only the Northern Territory but Australia at Olympic level, there is no doubt that in the Northern Territory the most successful sport of all at the Olympic level is hockey. Australia has been represented in hockey by numerous Northern Territory athletes, including: Stephen Holt, who won bronze in the Sydney 2000 Olympics; Mark Hickman, who won gold at the Athens Olympics in 2004; Des Abbott, who won bronze in the Beijing 2008 Olympics; and of course no-one can forget Nova Peris, who was the first Aboriginal Australian and Northern Territory athlete to win an Olympic gold medal. Nova did this at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta and then, amazingly, in 1997 she changed to athletics and went on to be one of only a handful of Australian athletes to compete in two different sports at the Olympic level, making it into the 400-metre semi-final at the Sydney 2000 Olympics.
As you can see, the Northern Territory has a strong history of elite sporting talent, a solid legacy for our future athletes to follow. Our involvement in the 2012 London Olympics was quite modest. All Northern Territory residents were delighted that we were to have cousins Des Abbott and Joel Carroll selected to represent Australia in the men's hockey team. Unfortunately, Des was ruled out of the squad before the Games due to a knee injury. Joel, however, went on to win bronze when the Kookaburras downed Great Britain 3-1 in the bronze medal play-off. The pair now have matching bronze medals.
The Northern Territory would also like to claim success in the pool with Katherine-born swimmer Leisel Jones, who has become a well-known Olympic icon. London was Leisel's fourth Olympic Games, having previously competed in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Games. Leisel has made the Northern Territory, Australia and me personally proud, being rewarded for her dedication and winning three gold medals during her career as well as a silver medal in the recent London Olympics.
2011 Tour de France winner Cadel Evans, like Leisel Jones, was born in Katherine. The London Olympics was the fourth time he had been selected to represent Australia. First selected in 1996 and 2000 to represent Australia in the men's mountain bike cross-country, Cadel moved to the men's road racing and was chosen to represent Australia in 2008 and 2012. Unfortunately, Cadel had to withdraw from the men's time trial only days before the competition due to illness, but there is no doubt of the athlete's elite level of performance and achievements so far.
It is not only our Northern Territory athletes that I wish to congratulate today. I am in awe of our entire Australian Olympic team and would like to thank each and every one of them and their families for their dedication and determination, and for the sacrifices they have made during their sporting careers. No-one can deny it is an amazing achievement and an absolute honour to represent your country. Everyone acknowledges that it is not all about the medals; and while it may be disappointing for the members themselves that many of our talented team did not win a medal, they must know that all Australians are extremely proud of each and every one of our Olympic athletes and that we are grateful for the way that they proudly represented their country.
I would like to acknowledge our medal winning Olympians. Gold medals were won by Sally Pearson, women's 100-metre hurdles; Jacob Clear, Tate Smith, David Smith and Murray Stewart; Anne Meares; Mathew Belcher and Malcolm Page; Iain Jensen and Nathan Outteridge; Thomas Slingsby; and Cate Campbell, Alicia Coutts, Brittany Elmsie and Melanie Schlanger.
Silver medals went to Jared Tallent; Mitchell Watt; Jessica Fox; Samuel Willoughby; Jack Bobridge; Rohan Dennis; Michael Hepburn and Glenn O'Shea; Brittany Broben; rowing four, James Chapman, Joshua Dunkley-Smith, Drew Ginn and William Lockwood; Kimberly Crow and Brooke Pratley; Kate Hornsey and Sarah Tait; Nina Curtis, Olivia Price and Lucinda Whitty; James Magnussen, Christian Sprenger, Emily Seebohm; Alicia Coutts; the women's 200m individual medley team of Leisel Jones, Alicia Coutts, Melanie Schlanger and Emily Seebohm; and the women's four by 200-metre freestyle relay team, Bronte Barratt, Alicia Coutts, Kylie Palmer and Melanie Schlanger.
Bronze medals were won by the Opals, the Australian women's basketball team, consisting of Suzy Batkovic, Abby Bishop, Elizabeth Cambage, Laura Hodges, Lauren Jackson, Rachel Jarry, Kathleen Macleod, Jenna O'Hea, Sam Richards, Jennifer Screen, Belinda Snell and Kristi Willoughby; by Shane Perkins, Annette Edmondson, Kaarle McCulloch and Anna Meares; the Kookaburras, the men's hockey team, made up of Nathan Burgers, Matthew Butturini, Joel Carroll, Christopher Cirello, Liam De Young, Timothy Deavin, Jamie Dwyer, Russell Ford, Matt Gohdes, Kieran Govers, Fergus Kavanagh, Mark Knowles, Edward Ockenden, Simon Orchard, Matthew Swan and Glenn Turner; the men's rowing quad sculls, Karsten Fosterling, James McRae, Christopher Morgan and Daniel Noonan; the men's four by 100-metre medley relay, Christian Sprenger, Hayden Stoeckel, Matthew Targett and James Magnussen; Alicia Coutts, Bronte Barratt and Erin Densham; and the women's water polo team, Gemma Beadsworth, Victoria Brown, Kate Gynther, Bronwen Knox, Holly Lincoln-Smith, Alicia McCormack, Jane Moran, Glencora Ralph, Melissa Rippon, Sophie Smith, Ashleigh Southern, Rowena Webster and Nicola Zagame.
Well done to all of these people, and congratulations to you all on your outstanding achievement. I think it is important that you all know that we as Australians are very proud of you as members of the Australian Olympic team. On behalf of my electorate of Solomon, thank you for your hard work and dedication. We respect you all and, whether you won a medal or not, you will be known as Olympians for life. Well done. We are proud of you.
Debate adjourned.
Federation chamber adjourned at 13:01