I inform the Senate that I have received letters from Senator Sherry and Senator Bob Brown resigning their places as Senators for the State of Tasmania. Pursuant to the provisions of section 21 of the Constitution, I have notified the Governor of Tasmania of the vacancies in the representation of that state caused by the resignations.
I table letters of resignation and copies of my letters to the Governor.
) ( ): by leave—At the request of Senator Cash, I move:
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 11 am.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 12.45 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the prevention and treatment of problem gambling.
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to standing order 38, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012 and related bills, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, which was presented to a temporary chair of committees on 15 June 2012. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, the publication of the report was authorised.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I table five revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
SHIPPING REFORM (TAX INCENTIVES) ACT 2012
The tax reforms are a major component of the government's Stronger Shipping for a Stronger Economy legislative reforms to revitalise the Australian shipping industry.
The purpose of the government's tax reforms is to encourage and support capital investment.
Changes made in 1996 by the previous government have meant a lack of investment in Australia's fleet.
A consequence of this lack of investment, in addition to the slow decline in the number of registered vessels, is that our ships are getting older.
The average age of the Australian fleet now sits at almost 20 years which is around eight years older than those in the world fleet.
Ironically, this imbalance exists despite Australia being a country that prides itself on the safety and environmental outcomes of our shipping.
In addition to being a brake on improving the productivity of our domestic shipping industry; newer vessels are safer, more energy efficient and better meet the needs of modern shipping.
Encouraging new investment is critical if we are to revitalise the industry.
The tax reforms I am introducing today provide a platform for this investment.
The tax reforms comprise two bills:
This bill provides for the issue of certificates after the end of the financial year to companies who meet the requirements of the tax concession regime.
It also provides companies applying for these concessions for the first time the opportunity to obtain a 'notice' during the first year of entry.
This will give companies a degree of certainty that their proposed arrangements will meet the requirements of the Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Bill 2012.
Additional requirements will apply to companies accessing the income tax exemption.
Companies will need to demonstrate that they have a substantial proportion of commercial, technical or strategic operations as well as crew management based in Australia.
Companies will also be required to comply with a mandatory training requirement.
The details of this training requirement, which are currently being finalised by the Maritime Workforce Development Forum, will be contained in regulations.
These provisions are aimed at ensuring beneficiaries of this best-in-class tax concessions have a tangible connection to Australia and are committed to building the local maritime industry.
The bill also provides the power to collect and collate data in relation to these reforms.
Powers to review decision are also provided for.
SHIPPING REGISTRATION AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING REGISTER) BILL 2012
Australia's burgeoning commodity trade provides us with a once in a generation opportunity to become part of the international shipping trade.
This bill, the Shipping Registration Amendment (Australian International Shipping Register) Bill 2012, will provide the vehicle to achieve this.
Currently, we have only four Australian flagged vessels participating solely in the international trade.
We need to move up the value chain – not only do we want to mine the iron ore for the world; we should be transporting it to the world as well.
Over the last 20 years, international registers have been embraced by many advanced countries, which, like Australia, have seen a large portion of their fleet register off shore.
International registers offer some of the benefits of open registers, such as the ability to use crew of different nationalities, while ensuring that the ship owner maintains a strong link to the country of registration.
These are not flags of convenience.
All companies with vessels on the international register will need to demonstrate strong links to Australia, ensuring that our maritime safety regulator, Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has the regulatory reach to ensure compliance with our high safety, environmental and occupational health and safety standards.
Consistent with this, the primary objectives of this reform are to:
The bill establishes two shipping registers—the general and international registers.
Unlike the general register, AMSA will have the discretion to register a vessel on the international register and will have the power to cancel registration.
The bill sets out a range of matters that the registrar may have regard to when making a decision to register a vessel.
This decision is reviewable.
This discretion is important to ensure that we maintain a quality flag.
The crewing and labour provisions are a key element of this bill and go to the core of its competitiveness.
Before I outline these provisions, I would like to thank those in the labour movement who have worked with us on these provisions.
This reform package is not pro-union, it is not pro-business; it is pro-Australian.
Both employers and unions alike have worked constructively with the government to ensure that these reforms are world's best practice and offer the industry the best chance to compete on a level playing field with international shipping.
Mixed Crewing
The bill provides for mixed crews on Australian international register vessels.
However, international register vessels will be required to employ a minimum of two Australian crew members; preferably the master and the chief engineer.
One of the benefits of mixed crewing will be the employment opportunities for seafarers in the Pacific region and I know that the MUA is working hard on these regional partnerships.
Employment Conditions
To ensure that the international register is competitive, crews will be employed on international terms and conditions while engaged in international trading.
These employment conditions are in accordance with the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC).
Minimum wages and a number of conditions are set out in the bill.
Unless specifically amended in this bill, the provisions of chapter 2 in the Navigation Act 1912 will also apply to these seafarers.
This creates a safety net.
The bill provides for collective agreements to be negotiated through a seafarers' bargaining unit (SBU).
A collective agreement agreed with the SBU will be required for registration in the international register.
The bill also ensures that seafarers who suffer long term injury or death are adequately compensated.
The bill requires that ship owners hold insurance cover that provides for the level of compensation set out in the International Transport Workers' Federation Uniform Total Crew Cost Collective Agreement.
AMSA will have additional powers to ensure vessels comply with the working, living and crewing condition provisions contained in this bill.
A civil penalty and infringement notice regime is also established under the bill.
These measures are important to ensure there is no derogation of standards.
Participation in the Coastal Trade
Greater involvement by Australian companies in international trade will provide the catalyst to reinvigorate our domestic trades.
Consistent with this, vessels registered in the international register will have limited access to the coastal trade.
Operating under temporary licences, these vessels can compete with foreign flagged vessels in the coastal trade.
As I have already made clear, the Fair Work Act 2009 will apply to vessels operating under temporary licences.
To ensure our ships are on a level playing field with foreign flagged vessels, the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 will not apply to international register vessels.
I know there is some concern that some coastal trading vessels may seek to avoid their legal responsibilities by joining the international register.
This will not happen.
The bill includes a requirement that vessels must be predominantly engaged in international trading.
Registration can be cancelled if this requirement ceases to be met.
COASTAL TRADING (REVITALISING AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING) BILL 2012
It is with great pride that I introduce the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012.
We are in the middle of a once in a generation resources boom.
Yet only one half of one per cent of that trade is carried by Australian flagged vessels.
In the past decade the Australian fleet has gone from 55 ships to 21 with only four operating on international routes.
Our ports manage ten per cent of the world's entire sea trade.
$200 billion worth of cargo is moved annually.
In a country where 99.9 per cent of our trade is moved by ships, there will soon be no fleet to revitalise.
We need to act now or we won't have an industry left at all.
This is the first of five bills that comprise the government's Stronger Shipping for a Stronger Economy legislative reforms to revitalise the Australian shipping industry.
This package is an integrated suite of reforms which address fiscal, regulatory and workforce aspects of our nation's shipping industry.
This is the most far reaching overhaul of the Australian shipping industry since 1912.
These reforms level the playing field and provide the industry with a stable fiscal and regulatory regime to encourage investment and promote our international competitiveness.
Like many industries, Australian shipping is at a critical juncture in its ability to continue to be viable.
The irony of the industry's situation is that it is set against the backdrop of major global change, of which Australia is a major beneficiary.
The double digit growth of China and India, as well as other developing economies has driven demand for our resources.
The lack of an Australian shipping industry that can compete in the international marketplace is a lost national opportunity.
There are a number of reasons why Australian shipping has been declining; most of them have directly resulted from policy decisions made by the previous government.
Due to being so far behind our international competitors in terms of fiscal incentives the last decade or more has seen almost no investment in Australian ships.
One of the consequences of this lack of investment is that the average age of the Australian fleet now sits at almost 20 years against the global average of 12 years.
The age of our fleet has implications for the industry's productivity and environmental performance.
Modern vessels incorporate new technology delivering greater efficiencies.
Without new investment in the fleet, Australian shipping will continue to lag behind world standards.
Falling productivity when compared to other modes has seen shipping's participation in the domestic freight task continue to decline.
But it is not just the age of the fleet that is holding us back.
Like many industries, the maritime sector is also feeling the pressures of an ageing workforce.
We must attract new recruits; but we also need to have enough ships so that cadets can gain the required sea time to obtain their qualifications.
In the absence of a domestic shipping capacity we will be unable to train our own seafarers and will be reliant on the international market place to provide us with our maritime safety and environmental regulators.
This government believes that there are compelling economic, environmental and national security reasons to support revitalisation of the Australian shipping industry.
This belief is at the heart of the Gillard government's Stronger Shipping for a Stronger Economy vision.
Let me turn now to the main elements of the Coastal Trading (Revitalisation of Australian Shipping) Bill 2012.
The bill aims to:
I previously stated that this bill is the most significant overhaul of our coastal trading arrangements since they were introduced early last century.
Back in 1912 when those provisions were debated in the House the role of British-owned shipping companies in the Australian coastal trade was the subject of much discussion.
100 years later, the debate has moved on.
We have one of the most liberal coastal trading regimes in the world.
Unlike America, Canada or various EU countries, Australia recognises that there is a legitimate role for foreign flagged vessels in our domestic shipping industry.
Under the provisions of this bill this will not change.
Nothing in this package of bills closes our coast.
However, we are making transparent the decision making processes, which determine a foreign vessel's participation in Australian domestic shipping.
In support of this, a new three tier licensing system will replace the antiquated system of licences and permits:
In creating a temporary licence we are moving away from the current system where companies apply on a permit by permit basis
However, we have maintained the flexibility provided by the permit system, through the creation of a licence variation process.
Temporary licence holders will be able to vary their licence to increase the number of voyages that will be undertaken or to vary the details of those voyages that have already been authorised.
General licence holders will have the opportunity to nominate for these voyages.
Again, this will be an open and transparent decision making process.
The bill provides for enhanced merits review of decisions, including recourse to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on a range of matters.
It also provides enhanced penalty provisions that modernise and provide greater scope for action if there are attempts to undermine the objectives of the system.
Transparency is a cornerstone of this new model and the bill provides for strengthened reporting and publishing arrangements, to enable all industry participants to better understand the shipping market and to support more informed decision making.
Commercially sensitive information will not be released.
There has been some debate regarding the industrial arrangements for vessels engaged in the domestic coastal trade.
This government made the decision in 2009 that vessels operating in the coastal trade will be subject to the provisions of the Fair Work Act.
This was implemented through the Fair Work Act Regulations 2010.
It is this government's policy that this scope of coverage will not change.
These vessels are operating in the domestic economy and these seafarers are entitled to be paid Australian wages.
This bill is the key to the regulatory framework – a framework that supports Australian coastal shipping, while allowing for the participation of foreign vessels.
It is a framework that will enhance our participation in international trade and underpin the Australian industry with generous tax concessions that level the playing field between Australian shipping and its international competitors.
However, a ship is only as good as its crew.
That is why a key element of the government's reform package is workforce development.
We must attract, train and retain a skilled seafaring workforce.
There will be no incentive to invest without the right people in the right jobs.
There are challenges of an ageing workforce, costly and complicated training systems and the consequent erosion of skills.
This was strongly identified by the parliamentary inquiry into coastal shipping.
The government has already been doing its bit in this area and I believe industry must also ramp up its efforts in resolving the skills lag.
To encourage this on 1 January 2012 I established the Maritime Workforce Development Forum with experienced people from industry, unions and the training sector.
It is chaired by the former Public Service Commissioner Ms Lynelle Briggs.
The forum is addressing areas that are fundamental to building our skills base.
These will include a workforce plan for the medium term to address issues including the ageing workforce and the most immediate skills gaps.
The forum will be in place for no more than five years and I will review its effectiveness within two years.
The final element of the reform package is labour productivity.
We are committed to aligning Australian productivity practices with the best in the world.
To do this, we will need a compact between industry and unions.
This compact must include changes to work practices, a review of safe manning levels and the use of riding gangs on coastal vessels.
This compact is essential to the reform agenda.
Negotiations between industry and the unions are progressing.
Before I close, I would like to thank those in the industry who share our vision for a revitalised Australian shipping industry – the ship owners, unions and shippers who have worked constructively with the government since 2007 to develop this package.
This package of legislation is the product of a long and thorough process of consultation and review.
Starting first with a comprehensive review by the House of Representatives committee, who delivered a bipartisan report recommending a policy framework to revitalise the shipping industry.
In 2009, I convened the Shipping Policy Advisory Group comprising shippers, industry and unions to advise me on how best to implement these recommendations.
In 2010, fulfilling our election commitment a discussion paper was released seeking public comment on the proposed reforms.
In 2011, I established three industry reference groups to work through the detail of the reforms. Again, these groups comprised a cross-section of industry.
We involved representatives from across government, with Treasury chairing the fiscal group.
Exposure drafts of all the bills were released for public comment and a further roundtable was held in February to enable industry to work through the details with officials.
I thank those officials for their leadership and assistance in shaping the final tax package that is being introduced today.
The commitment and cooperation demonstrated by those who participated in this process is a credit to the industry and I thank them for their efforts.
COASTAL TRADING (REVITALISING AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2012
The Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2012 will ensure that there is a smooth transition from the current coastal trading arrangements to the new regulatory regime.
I would like to turn first to the proposed transitional general licence, which has been the subject of some public commentary.
Transitional General Licen c e
Under this bill, a transitional general licence will be created to enable foreign flagged vessels currently operating in the Australian coastal trade under a licence, to continue their operations.
These vessels are currently licensed under part VI of the Navigation Act 1912.
This provision recognises that operators of foreign flagged vessels may not be able to immediately transfer to the Australian register.
This may be due to a range of financial, legal or other commercial constraints.
These vessels are performing an important function in the domestic shipping industry.
A transitional general licence will be valid for up to five years and may be renewed once for an additional five years.
Inclusion of this power for an additional renewal was in response to stakeholder feedback that indicated that a number of these vessels are locked into commercial agreements that go beyond the initial five years and cannot be re-negotiated without considerable financial penalty.
Proof of these commercial arrangements will be required to support an application for renewal of a transitional general licence.
In the long term, if these operators wish to continue to have unrestricted access to the Australian coast, they have to register their vessels in the Australian General Shipping Register.
Vessels operating under a transitional general licence will be required to pay wages consistent with the current obligations under the Fair Work Act for vessels operating under licences issued under the Navigation Act.
There will be no increase in the wages payable.
Foreign flagged vessels currently operating under permits will not be allowed to apply for transitional general licences.
Four month transition period
To minimise disruption as we move from the old to the new system, this bill provides that permits or licences, which are valid immediately before commencement of this bill will continue to be in force until their expiry date or up to four months after 1 July 2012.
Any application submitted on or before 30 June, which was not decided by 1 July 2012, will be assessed in accordance with the Navigation Act requirements.
These will be valid for up to a maximum of three months.
These arrangements will provide industry with a level of certainty as we move to the new system.
Occupational Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation
Consistent with current arrangements, the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 will continue to apply to vessels operating under a general licence and foreign vessels operating under a transitional general licence.
This act will also apply to all vessels registered in the Australian International Shipping Register (AISR) irrespective of where these vessels are located.
This is to ensure that AISR vessels maintain high standards of safety.
The Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 will not apply to vessels registered in the Australian International Shipping Register when these vessels are operating under a temporary licence.
This will enable AISR vessels to operate on a competitive footing with foreign flagged vessels while engaging in the coastal trade.
A number of consequential amendments are required to existing Commonwealth laws to prevent any potential gaps in these laws as we repeal certain parts of the Navigation Act.
Minor amendments will also be made to the Australian Maritime Safety Act 1990 to ensure that AMSA is able to share information with Department of Infrastructure and Transport for the administration and enforcement of the requirements of the new legislation on coastal trading.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (SHIPPING REFORM) BILL 2012
The purpose of the government's tax reforms is to encourage and support capital investment.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Shipping Reform) Bill 2012 delivers a best-in-class internationally competitive tax reform package.
The tax concessions contained in this bill aim to address the cost disadvantages faced by Australian ship owners and encourage renewal of the ageing Australian fleet.
The bill provides:
These concessions are available to companies that satisfy the qualifying conditions and hold a valid certificate, as set out in the Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Bill 2012.
Turning to each of these concessions:
Exemption from income tax for ship operators
International experience in Europe, Asia and South America shows that the introduction of financial support—usually in the form of a tonnage tax and personal tax breaks for seafarers working in the international trade—has had substantial and very positive effects.
The bill I introduce today goes a step further—the government is not introducing a new tax in the form of a tonnage tax—instead it exempts qualifying income from shipping from taxation.
The effect of this provision is that Australian resident companies with vessels registered in Australia, including those on the international register, will not pay company tax.
Furthermore, a generous approach is taken to defining these activities that generate eligible shipping income.
Accelerated depreciation
This bill provides ship owners with an accelerated rate of depreciation for their ships.
When introducing the previous bill, I mentioned before Australia has an old fleet compared to international standards.
This is in part due to our depreciation rate for vessels being set at 20 years.
This bill cuts that rate in half.
The new depreciation rate will be 10 years.
This provision has multiple effects.
An economic benefit—the cost of operating a 20 year old large bulk carrier is at least 40 percent more than for a five year old ship.
A safety and environmental benefit—newer vessels incorporate new technology making them safer and more environmentally friendly.
An employment benefit as ship building is encouraged.
Roll over relief
The rollover relief concession provides that if a ship is disposed of, ship owners will be able to defer tax due on a balancing adjustment amount by two years.
If a replacement ship is purchased by the end of the two years, the balancing adjustment will be rolled over.
Combined with the accelerated depreciation concession, ship owners will have a greater incentive to invest in more modern and efficient ships.
Refundable Tax Offset
It makes no sense that an Australian seafarer working on a ship in the Port of London should pay Australian income tax while an Australian working as a bartender in a pub in London does not.
This creates a disincentive for hiring Australian seafarers.
Consequently, the bill provides for a refundable tax offset for employers of Australian resident seafarers.
The seafarer tax offset provides an incentive for a company to employ Australian seafarers on overseas voyages.
This will also provide Australian seafarers with the opportunity to develop their maritime skills on ships operating in international trade.
For an employer to qualify for the offset, the seafarer must have served on overseas voyages for at least 91 days in the income year on an eligible vessel.
Royalty Withholding Tax
Finally, payments made for the lease of shipping vessels from foreign resident lessors will be exempt from royalty withholding tax.
This exemption applies to payments made by Australian resident companies for the lease, on a bareboat basis, of qualifying vessels that are used commercially to ship cargo or passengers.
This element is aimed at reducing the costs for Australian shipping operators of securing vessels from overseas.
Together, these tax arrangements ensure investment in Australian shipping will continue.
I rise to speak on a matter of immense importance to the Australian economy and in particular to the regional economy. Transport has always been crucial to Australia. We have the curse of being so far from many of the world's major markets—but maybe it is a blessing being so far from any of the world's major problems at the moment. However, this is an issue with transport, so if we want to compete on a global market then we must have globally competitive costs.
Whilst the success of our agriculture, mining, manufacturing and tourism industries cannot be faulted without an efficient and effective transport system, all their efforts will be for nothing if we cannot get the product to the purchaser. There is no point in growing wheat, barley or triticale if we cannot transport it to a market. There is no point in exploring for new reserves of iron ore, coal, rare earths or bauxite if we cannot get the shipping to take it to the ports near markets in South-East Asia. The question before us is not one between no transport network or some transport network but one about getting the most effective transport in place so that Australian industry can be encouraged and invigilated—and I love that word—by access to the world's best transport infrastructure at a reasonable price.
We have all seen the impact of the high Australian dollar on our exporting industries. We might be encouraged in some instances that the dollar is high because people are purchasing our products. It was a fortunate circumstance that we had South-East Asia to drag us through the global financial crisis with their purchase of coal and iron ore—obviously nothing to do with any crazy schemes of putting ceiling insulation in roofs or building school halls or absent-mindedly throwing out $900 cheques. But if we go to the actual structure of how we support our nation and to one of the fundamentals, which is transport cost, and start meddling in that in such way as to make our exports less competitive then we are really just having a shot at ourselves. It is the same as making our costs higher and less competitive. It makes it harder for Australian businesses to sell their products overseas. It is always a staple that we must understand that the only mechanism that really keeps the Australian economy going is those export based industries, predominantly based in regional Australia, that rely on the export of goods. In the whole GDP argument so often people misled by saying, 'Well, the majority of the GDP is in the crescent economy that exists between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.' That might be the case, but the source of that wealth comes from regional Australia. Somebody has to put something on the table to make the money spin around. That person who puts something on the table must be able to get it onto a ship and export it to get those dollars into our nation to support the standard of living we expect.
We are an island nation. Commodities rely on coastal shipping: 99 per cent of our exports travel by sea and only one per cent by air. In fact, 75 per cent of the value of our exports travel by sea and a large proportion of our interstate transport travels by sea. So we are really dealing with something that is fundamentally important to the fluid movement in the Australian economy.
We should apply this test to all transport bills that come before us: do these bills make it easier for our farmers, miners and manufacturers or do they make it harder for them and therefore increase the cost and their frustration? It is by this test that the coalition will oppose these bills. We oppose these bills because the government plans to introduce a complicated, convoluted and futile system which will frustrate the access to shipping for Australian business and thereby choke the business prospects of future opportunities. Because these bills do not meet our own objectives and are a threat to the competitiveness and vibrancy of our exporting industries, the coalition will move a second reading amendment that has been circulated in the chamber. This amendment says that we decline a second reading for these bills until the bills have been referred to the Productivity Commission for further consultation.
Australia has the sixth longest coastline of any nation in the world despite being only the world's 13th largest economy. We have the fourth largest shipping task in the world and shipping takes a quarter of Australian freight between the states. It is therefore fundamentally true that Australian businesses need access to the most affordable shipping we can provide to make them competitive. These bills will put into question whether we can achieve such an increase in shipping. If we cannot, that will put more pressure on our roads and more pressure on our rail network. It is quite obvious that, if we are not moving things by sea, we are going to have to sit behind a truck going down the Pacific Highway. We have also failed in other major tasks in this nation such as getting alternate transport corridors going such as inland rail, which is something that the Labor Party is always talking about, always announcing, but never building. Already we have 3,000 trucks a day going through a place such as Moree because of inadequate rail services. Coal is being transported along the roads of western Queensland. Trains, whilst leaving Fallon, the second-biggest grain receival depot in Queensland, have a maximum speed of 40 kilometres an hour. These are all signs of a government that has lost its way and has not invested in infrastructure, that is failing to take account of the fact that the times of prosperity that are currently seen in the Asian economy may not be there for an eternity, but our debt will be.
We see lately that the Indian economy is starting to plateau and we also see on the nightly news what is happening in Europe. We acknowledge that, if Europe falls out of bed, as the biggest economic bloc in the world and obviously the largest consumer of Chinese product, the Chinese demand for our commodities will peel off, and if the Chinese demand for our commodities peels off then the question we all have to ask ourselves is, how do we pay what is currently our $231 billion debt, how does Queensland pay what will be a $100 billion debt, how does New South Wales pay its debt, how does South Australia refloat its economy? All these questions are the realities of what is before us at the moment.
We have to be pragmatic and understand that we have to take the best advantages that are before us at the moment. We must take advantage of these global markets and we must make sure that we must remove whatever impediments exist between us getting that commodity out of the ground or off the paddock and into the market, not exacerbate them. This bill exacerbates them. I hear the Reserve Bank talking and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer talking about how we should have a spring in our step. I have been examining the spring in our step lately and I think it is Topy spring soles. We have at this point of time in our economy extreme concerns, especially in the commercial sectors, especially in small business, especially on the high street, where we are just not getting the trade we expected. The Labor Party's process of trying to fix this is to bring in a mining tax, that is find the person who is making some money and hit them over the head. What they should be doing is trying to make sure that a well-oiled economy gets that money flowing around by its own natural means. One of the ways to do that is by having an effective transport system, an efficient transport system.
The Labor Party's logic is completely counterintuitive. They are creating another impediment on our coastal shipping, they have failed to invest in our internal transport corridors, they are creating unnecessary impediments in such things as development of the Galilee Basin by disappearing overnight a la the live cattle trade debacle approach and throwing sand in the wheels of trying to get another export market going and trying to take advantage of the prices that we are currently seeing in South-East Asia. We have seen the Labor Party stand up and all of a sudden turn most of the Coral Sea into a marine park. This is not a sign of a government that seems to be watching the news at night and trying to work out what on earth is happening around the world. This is a government that is completely distracted. We have Minister Burke crying in his beer because he cannot go to Rio tomorrow. There are probably other things at home you should be talking about, Minister Burke. You should be explaining to us what on earth you are doing shutting down large sections of the Queensland fishing industry, creating yet another impediment; why you are creating these impediments on the export of coal; why you are so negative. They always complain that we say no, but what they do is say no to future prosperity and completely ignore what is happening on the television at night. These bills will establish a second register of Australian ships, to be known as the Australian International Shipping Register. Ships will be able to join this register provided they meet the eligibility criteria, including the requirement to have two senior Australian officers on board. These bills will help respond to the critical skills shortage that exists in the Australian shipping industry.
Whilst the coalition supports these changes, the bills have some concerning flaws that may be the result of an inadequate consultation process. Despite these bills being very complex, the consultation period for the draft legislation was open for only a few weeks. Once the bills were introduced, they included new provisions not previously contemplated. Unfortunately, despite some positive changes in these bills, because of these flaws the coalition remains unconvinced that these changes will see a significant increase in the number of Australian flagged vessels operating on our coast. This is not just the position of the coalition; it is supported by industry as well. For example, Shipping Australia stated in its submission that some of the provisions, at least in the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012, are confusing and 'in our view require substantial amendment to meet what we understand to be the objects of the bill'. Tom Pinder, from Australian Coastal Shipping said:
The proposed legislation, as it relates to coastal container shipping, can only exacerbate this situation and will not result in any Australian flagged/registered ships valiantly taking up the challenge of carrying containers on the principal coast route, namely, east coast to west coast.
A continuation down the path of a one size fits all [policy] will result eventually in all of the current east west freight task being diverted to the inadequate infrastructure of road and rail with hugely increased costs and a totally detrimental effect on the carbon footprint—
Which the Labor Party seems to bang on about all the time. You are going to have to explain to every family on holidays that has a truck sitting in front of them with a container on the back that it could have been going by sea. It is not going by sea because, in their wisdom, the Labor Party has decided to make moving stuff by sea harder. So where else will they go? They will go down an inadequate rail network. An adequate inland transport corridor has just never been built by the Labor Party, and the roads are chock-a-block and are being torn to pieces, especially after the floods. Or they will go down the Pacific Highway, in amongst mum and dad and the kids going on their holidays. It is peculiar, but you get used to that hanging around with this crowd.
Even the department of transport itself is not promising that these bills will lead to an increase in the number of ships. The Australian Logistics Council has raised questions about how many ships this package would actually see come onto the register. The department said in its reply that it is 'not appropriate to speculate on how many will take advantage of this new legislation'. So there is no guarantee that these bills will increase the number of Australian ships, and there is no doubt that these bills will increase red tape and costs for those using Australian shipping.
One bill in this set, the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012 abolishes part VI of the Navigation Act 1912 and, hence, abolishes the current permit and licensing system. These bills will lace that system with a three tiered licensing system: (1) a general licence which provides unrestricted access for Australian registered vessels crewed by Australians, permanent residents or foreigners with appropriate work visas to engage in coastal trading in Australian waters for a maximum of five years; (2) a temporary licence which provides limited access to engage in coastal trading for foreign flagged vessels or Australian international second register vessels for a 12-month period for specifically identified voyages; and (3) an emergency licence which provides extremely limited access in identified emergency situations such as natural disasters.
This three tiered system will create obvious difficulties. The new temporary licence category will only be issued where, according to the explanatory memorandum, 'those voyages where the required information is known, including expected loading dates, loading and discharge ports and cargo types and volumes'.
Remember these temporary licences are issued for a 12-month period. How can a user of shipping provide information on their expected loading dates 12 months in advance? Let us do an experiment on this. How many people in this chamber could tell us exactly where they are going in the next 12 months? How many politicians would like to submit a register for the next 12 months of exactly what flights they are going to catch and, if they go beyond that, provide a licence? This is obviously another form of bureaucracy that has passed the backbench of the Labor Party and, no doubt, had good oversight from Senator Doug Cameron, but it obviously has not passed anything that has to do with a reasonable expectation or understanding of the requirements for fluid movement of transport or to try to remove some of the impediments and red tape.
By doing this, we want to keep Australians in jobs. Let us keep the economy going and not the idea that you think you are going to create jobs by making things impossible. It just seems bizarre. It is another extension of the mad carbon tax idea. With the carbon tax they are going to cool the planet. Somehow, by putting up the price of power, it will keep people in work. No it will not. If you put up the price of power it will put people out of work. That is the only logical thing. You are putting people out of work by putting up the price of power and making life a misery for everybody who has to turn on the lights in their house and by shutting down the economy even further and putting more waste in the economy by saying that, even if you do manage to get something to the port, you are going to have an uncompetitive weight placed on you so that people exporting from Indonesia will have greater access to the market for coal than people exporting from Australia.
We have to understand that the global market, from all observations, looks like it is heading into a very uncertain time. We in this country should be doing everything in our power to realise that and to make sure that the mechanisms of commerce and the movement of things are as fluid as possible. We can protect our interests, but we do not protect our interests by winding back the clock and creating unnecessary impediments on the movement of Australian products from Australian fields and Australian mines. That is basically what this will do: it is just going to create an unnecessary overhead in the movement of Australian product. Noting that our major export is coal and our major sector is mining and that it is all moved by ship, we have to understand that this economy works on export dollars, on what you put on the ship.
Look at what people are wearing. This gentleman in front of me is wearing a shirt from China or somewhere and a suit that is pretty nice and could come from Italy or somewhere like that. The shoes are not from around here; they are from overseas. I do not know where the chair he is sitting on was made. Everything around us—including the computers—is made overseas. We live by the benefaction of things that come off a boat to us. Our cars predominantly come from overseas. Our fuel comes from overseas. The hotplate we cook on at night comes from overseas. I do not know where the lights are made but you would probably find they come from overseas. So everything is coming off a ship. If you do not believe it, think of your own household and think of where the things come from: they have come off a ship. So, if you are going to increase the cost of shipping, quite obviously you are going to increase your cost of living.
The only way we survive—and they do not send this for charity—is by somebody somewhere sticking something on a ship and sending it in the other direction. Who are these people that stick something on a ship and send it in the other direction? Let us face it: we have a manufacturing sector but it is not a large one, so we are sticking coal on a ship, we are sticking iron ore on a ship, we are sticking wheat on a ship, we are sticking barley on a ship and we were sticking cattle on a ship until they closed down the live-cattle trade.
All these things are the source of our wealth when that money turns. That is when that $20 turns up. That is when the five people at the table spin it and then the five people say, 'Well, the GDP of this table is now $100—five times $20.' But if that $20 had not turned up—so if that person who put the $20 on the table had not turned up—the GDP of that table would have been zero. And the person who puts that $20 on the table is regional Australia. Coal, iron ore, barley, sheep—that is where the money turns up from and then it spins around our nation's economy. But, if we are going to put in an impediment to that $20 turning up on the table, life for the rest of the people living off the table is going to become harder; it has to.
This is why we have to look at the practicalities of what these bills mean. We have got to make it as easy as possible for that 20 bucks to turn up at our table. We have got to make it as easy as possible for the exporting of coal so it makes it to its market and as easy as possible for the exporting of iron ore so it makes it to its market, and we have got to be time sensitive because these prices that we are getting at the market are peeling off and they are not going to stay up forever. If they peel off sufficiently enough our capacity to finance our debt and to finance the things that people have an expectation to receive—health services, education services, police services and defence services—will not be there.
When we look at these things and when we look at the legislation, we say at first glance, 'Oh well, it gets more Australians in the shipping industry jobs,' and I suppose it does, but that is very short term thinking because what it is going to do is make the system uncompetitive so everybody loses out. Caltex said in their submission that, given the variable nature of their operations, it was not possible—
Order! Senator Joyce, your time has expired. Can I invite you to move your second reading amendment?
Yes. I move:
Omit all words after “That”, substitute:
the Senate declines to give this bill and related bills a second reading until the bills have been referred to the Productivity Commission to:
(a) assess the Government's proposed “shipping reform package” for both international and coastal trades with reference to the current and historical arrangements;
(b) measure and discuss the economic and environmental impacts of reducing or increasing regulation of Australia's coastal shipping services to Australian manufacturing and industry dependent on coastal shipping services, the wider economy and Australia's coastal trading fleet, including passenger services;
(c) provide recommendations on policy options that would achieve the Government's objective for a viable, competitive shipping service in Australia for both coastal and international shipping that is in the national interest, lead to productivity gains and will not disaffect Australian manufacturing, industry and tourism;
and report on or before 31 December 2012.
Thank you, Senator Joyce.
I rise to speak in support of this suite of reforms to the shipping and maritime legislation, reforms which have quite literally been about 100 years in the making. Australian shipping has been heading under over the past 10 years. Our merchant fleet has decreased by half, with the number of Australian-licensed trading vessels dropping from 55 in 1996 to 21 today. And only four of those vessels are operating on international routes. In a country where 99.9 per cent of our trade is moved by ships, there will soon be no fleet to revitalise. Australian seafarers' jobs are being lost as overseas-flagged ships take more of our goods from producer to market. In a country that has the fourth largest shipping task in the world, this Labor government has never been prepared to sit back and wave bon voyage.
This suite of bills provides the incentives to invest in shipping in Australia. It will get the Australian flag flying on ships again—ships carrying goods produced by Australian workers both to markets in Australia and to Singapore, Hong Kong and the other great ports of the world. It is simple: either we get on with the job of reforming the industry and of trying to find the right incentives to assist Australians in the shipping industry or the Australian shipping industry will disappear, and our producers will be left at the mercy of more overseas decision makers. This results in increased uncertainty for business owners and for the hardworking Australians they employ. There are no plans to restrict the number of foreign vessels in Australian waters; these reforms are about levelling the playing field for Australian ships so that they can better compete.
I begin with a quote from Teresa Lloyd, Executive Director of the Australian Shipowners Association, on the day this suite of bills passed the lower house:
"I just want to say that the shipowners are ready to invest and this is a great day in terms of a new era for Australian shipping.
It's been very difficult to compete for at least the last 15 years, and that's seen the industry shrink to an almost unsustainable level.
And today is a fantastic day and the shipowners are quite committed for their investment decisions and they're looking forward to expanding into new trades, into new international opportunities that have never been available to us before.
We think it's a fantastic thing and we thank the Minister for all his efforts to make it happen."
This quote hits at the chord of the goodwill between the parties involved in negotiating this suite of bills, from a committee inquiry in 2008, the establishment of a shipping advisory group in 2009 and the release of a discussion paper that shaped the path taken to get to where we are today. Specific groups were then established, one on taxation, chaired by Treasury, one on regulatory reform and one on workforce development. Another inquiry was conducted when the suite of bills came to the House of Representatives. It was a process that the Labor Party, the labour movement and the shipping industry were committed to getting right.
These groups took the opportunity—because, as I said earlier, this is the first time in 100 years that the Navigation Act 1912 has been comprehensively updated. They took their opportunity and were very flexible during negotiations, making sure that they did not put their own interests first, no doubt recognising that together we can rebuild the Australian shipping industry and that together we are stronger than if we are all fighting over the pieces of broken hull. It was a process that led to unanimous recommendations on this legislation from the bipartisan parliamentary committee, including its deputy chair, Nationals MP Paul Neville, which makes the amendment proposed by Senator Joyce unnecessary. The shipping industry thought that the conservatives in this place were onside. Unfortunately, the National Party is being forced by its big brother to ignore its very own policy statements and put politics and obstructionism ahead of the livelihoods of Australian seafarers and Australian shipowners. Labor is here to take the necessary steps to ensure that Australia has a sustainable shipping industry for the next 200 years and that young Australians who dream of a life at sea will be able to have one under Australian wages and conditions. It is about recognising what government can do to assist industry and working collaboratively to achieve it. We all want and deserve a strong shipping industry in this country. Just like we are exporting our minerals, we should be exporting our expertise in naval architecture, seafaring and engineering.
The Leader of the Nationals, Mr Truss, is on record opposing these changes out of a concocted fear that other industries would want the same concessions—as though no industry-specific policies were ever enacted by the Howard government. I am very proud to say that just a few months ago this Labor government, with the support of the Independents and the Greens, moved through both houses of this parliament to abolish what was one of the most disgusting Howard era industry-specific policies. While we on this side are about building capacity in Australia's workforce and providing incentives for Australian business, those opposite are fixated on stripping away working conditions, stripping away family payments and stripping away incentives to invest.
I will now step the Senate through four key points in the legislation that bring the internal battle of the National Party senators to the fore. The National Party policy platform seeks to 'introduce a tonnage tax to replace company tax on an opt-in basis'. This seems to be a reasonable step, without promising too much. One would suspect that, if the bills, on the recommendations from Treasury and industry, went further, the Nationals would be only too keen to lend their support. These bills before us today introduce a zero rate of taxation for Australian shipping companies to get the vessels sailing again.
The National Party platform also seeks to 'introduce a national system of training support' to 'replace the existing state based distribution of funds'. Well, guess what? The bipartisan committee supported this and it is reflected in the bills before us.
The platform continues by saying that the Nationals will:
The work has been done. The bipartisan committee supported the reforms, and the bills will remove the income tax burden on Australian seafarers operating internationally.
Finally, the suite of legislation provides for a second shipping register. This second register was, once again, a part of the Nationals Policy Platform 2011-12. I urge them to support it through supporting this legislation.
Labor recognise that at times we need special assistance for some industries of national significance. Today we are looking at the maritime industry. Just this year we have sought to create better conditions for truckies in the road transport industry, for outworkers in the textile industry and for all workers in the construction industry.
This legislation would not have come about without the tireless advocacy of the Maritime Union of Australia and its national secretary, Paddy Crumlin. I recognise all from the MUA for your work. As many of you are aware, I am based in Devonport, Tasmania, the home of the MUA's Tasmanian branch. Membership of the MUA in Tasmania centres on the key transport linking us with the mainland, the Spirit of Tasmania. The Spirit, as it is affectionately known in Devonport, employs around 200 seafarers based between Devonport and Melbourne, making it the biggest employer of seafarers in Australia. There were many cries of relief from members in Devonport, many of whom are third- or fourth-generation maritime workers.
Tasmanian exporters have been hit hard over the past year, with the closure of the only international shipping service out of the island. All freight now has to move through the Port of Melbourne, significantly increasing costs to exporters. Federal Labor has delivered a $20 million package to assist Tasmanian exporters and, importantly, to investigate freight logistics in the state. The funding package contains three key measures: direct and immediate assistance of $14.5 million to Tasmanian exporters through a one-off payment to help them stay competitive in the new shipping environment; investing $4 million in infrastructure improvements at the port of Burnie to increase container-handling capacity and enhance the movements within the port, thereby reducing the need for shunting and double-handling; and establishing a freight logistics coordination team with an industry leadership. These three practical measures address the complex issues facing Tasmanian exporters, as well as the shortcoming in the state's supply lines. Together, the measures support exporters in the short term through direct assistance and benefit the whole state in the long term through significant infrastructure upgrades.
Labor is committed to Tasmania's and Australia's maritime industry. We are a seafaring nation, and this suite of bills has used the experience of those in the industry to best target how we can rebuild our once-great Australian shipping industry, a process that has seen industry, unions and government work together in the national interest. It is a great display of how these parties recognise that it is in their interests to achieve a positive outcome in the nation's interest, rather than picking over the leftover hulls of our shipping fleet. I commend these bills to the house and urge all to vote in their favour and support maritime workers and shipowners.
These bills—the Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Bill 2012, the Shipping Registration Amendment (Australian International Shipping Register) Bill 2012, the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012, the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2012 and the Tax Laws Amendment (Shipping Reform) Bill 2012—have been a long time in the making. In March 2008 we had a House of Representatives committee inquiry into our maritime trade and the state of our shipping industry. Australia as an island continent, as Senator Joyce pointed out, has a deep interest in the health of its shipping industry, as its economy depends on imports and exports. That report was tabled in October 2008, and it set out the basic architecture of the package that we are debating today.
I live in a port city. I call Fremantle home. I note that, on the way in and out of the office every day, you see the vessels that are tied up loading cargo and unloading cargo, and very, very few of them are registered in Australia. That is because our shipping industry has been decimated in the last few decades through policy neglect—or, you could even say, through deliberate policy intention. When Senator Joyce talks about competitiveness and about how uncompetitive he believes these bills will make the Australian shipping industry, he is talking about being competitive with Monrovia, Liberia, and with some of the other ports of convenience that the world's shipping fleets are registered out of. I think these bills give quite substantial effect to the principle that as a maritime trading nation Australia needs a strong shipping industry. Subsequent to the report of the House of Representatives inquiry in October 2008, there was a round table set up that eventually produced a discussion paper in 2010 with the support of the department that effectively laid out the bones of the reforms that we are discussing today. Subsequent to that, there were three shipping reference groups that were established through 2011 and, subsequent to these bills being tabled, there was a Senate inquiry to which, I should note, there was no dissent. That was a report tabled by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee without dissent. In case the coalition were hoping otherwise, I should say at the outset that the Greens will not be supporting a proposition to refer this package to yet another inquiry—this time to the Productivity Commission. As the MUA note in their submission, this is one instance where you can say these bills have been well consulted on—they have been put through the wringer, as it were—and everybody has been given the opportunity to make their views known.
There are three major elements to the package comprising the bills that we are debating today. The ones that I will focus on are effectively around the need for reform to protect the Australian shipping industry, such as it is. I will focus my brief comments on the coastal trading bills, the international shipping register bill and the taxation incentives. Our shipping industry has been in decline for many years, even though it carries upwards of 20 per cent of the nation's freight, and the Australian Greens believe that there is room for a larger proportion of our freight task to be taken up by coastal shipping. At the same time, there are now only 22 Australian registered ships engaged in major trading, down from 55 in 1996. The House of Representatives inquiry of 2008 into rebuilding Australia's coastal shipping industry found a number of things: that we are trading in an intensively competitive global environment, with many nations using tax incentives to attract shipping tonnage; that Australian ships are at a disadvantage as they are subject to the standard corporate tax rate, while competitors enjoy lower rates of tax; and that Australian ships also face competitive disadvantage in relation to wages and conditions on foreign ships.
We have a highly liberalised coastal trading framework. Substantially, we are working with the legacy of Howard era reforms that allow foreign-flagged and -crewed vessels to operate around our coasts under a permit which allows the vessels to be exempt from certain Australian requirements, including allowing lower-paid foreign workers. The basic principles were laid out in the introduction to the Senate committee report, which was tabled a short while ago and which is worth putting onto the Hansard record. The committee noted:
…revitalisation of the Australian coastal shipping sector begins with regulatory reform. Coastal shipping in this country is governed by a complex regulatory structure and the Committee has made several recommendations intended to harmonise shipping policy and regulation. Growth in the sector will be further enhanced by incentives such as the introduction of an optional tonnage tax and accelerated depreciation. Strong action on the part of all maritime stakeholders is required to abate the skills crisis, but government can assist and it is the Committee's recommendation that Australia's tonnage tax regime be linked to mandatory training requirements.
I congratulate the government on not taking a narrow approach but, for a change, taking a very broad, sector-wide approach to these reforms so that we are not seeing piecemeal reform. We are seeing a number of important measures being advanced at the same time so we can see quite clearly how the different elements of reform fit together. I am hoping that on my ride into work in a couple of years I will be able to see ships registered out of Fremantle or the Port of Melbourne or other Australian ports. There is no reason at all for a country like ours, which is so exposed to maritime trade, to not have a strong shipping industry.
The coastal trading bills provide the regulatory framework for access by vessels to coastal trading into Australia, so it is intended to support Australian vessels while still enabling access to foreign-flagged vessels. The framework will replace the current permit system for access to Australia's coasts with a licensing regime and it will create three kinds of licence: general, temporary and emergency. The general licence for Australian vessels would be for unrestricted carriage of domestic cargo and passengers by vessels registered on the Australian General Shipping Register. They will be crewed by Australian citizens, permanent residents or people with work visas. In the instance of temporary licences, foreign-registered vessels can still apply for a licence, and a general licence holder must be informed and the applications are then subject to negotiations for carriage by general licence holders' ability to nominate for the trade. Making that area of the trade contestable is, I think, quite an important step forward. The bill then achieves basic standards for rates of pay and conditions on ships engaged on coastal trading. I note that this is similar to the airline pilot and cabin crew demands which are part of the disputes unfolding at the moment with Qantas in particular; they are simply asking for similar rates of pay in light of airlines basing crew overseas and paying lower rates. So I think that, in these reforms, there are some important flags raised for the aviation industry.
I want to acknowledge the trade union movement's support for their colleagues and comrades in other countries, because it is easy enough to accuse them of simply seeking to protect and cocoon Australian industry from foreign competition. But, as the MUA point out in their submission to these bills, in particular to the Shipping Registration Amendment (Australian International Shipping Register) Bill:
The bills provide for the engagement of non-national seafarers for all but two positions on ships registered on the international register providing considerable scope for the engagement, training and employment of seafarers from regional nations, such as the islands of the south-west Pacific, including PNG, Timor Leste under structured arrangements, such as regional government-to-government partnership agreement, that we anticipate will dovetail into our international development assistance through AusAid programs for these nations.
There is in fact support here not only for Australian shipping but also for the training and the enabling of seafarers in other countries in our region to seek employment and to find themselves on these vessels.
The last thing that I wanted to note in the Australian International Shipping Register is the regulation of vessels to ensure an international reputation for high-quality maritime safety standards, while allowing competitive alternatives. What is being attempted in this package is to balance competition with, for example, labour standards and safety standards. Many submitters to the Senate inquiry made that important point, in particular the MUA—the importance of not simply, as Senator Joyce did, emphasising the competitive arrangements but reminding the chamber that poor safety and labour workforce standards on these ships carry very serious local consequences, as we are seeing now on an almost annual basis. For example, the vessel that drifted towards the Great Barrier Reef only last month could have had absolutely devastating consequences for the environment of the Great Barrier Reef.
Finally, the incentives bill that provides tax concession to Australian shipowners, allowing greater competition with foreign vessels, is something that we had to take a very good look at. Ultimately, I think it is a commonsense application of competition principles. These are very difficult playing fields to level when we are competing with countries that leverage much greater economies of scale than we can. Nonetheless, I look forward to reviewing these bills in the future to establish whether or not they have had the desired impact of bringing Australian flagged vessels back into our ports and on to coastal trading routes. I congratulate the MUA and its supporters, many of whom are in the gallery this morning, for their steadfast advocacy of the bill—I say steadfast but there are probably stronger words I could use. They have been very strongly in support of this package, of their workforce and of rebuilding the Australian shipping industry. I look forward to the passage of these bills later in this session.
I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the five bills that make up the shipping reform package. I do so from the particular perspective of my home state of Tasmania, which relies intrinsically on shipping and transport for almost everything that happens in that state—for all manufacturing and for all the goods that come onto the island. Effectively, we rely on shipping for everything that we consume and everything that we manufacture, except for some high-value products which are flown in and out. The cost of shipping and the impact of that cost on our island state is manifest. It is one of the most important issues for Tasmania.
In her presentation, Senator Urquhart mentioned the $20 million contribution that the Commonwealth government has made towards the cost of export for export businesses in Tasmania. I have to say that the way it has managed that process, particularly through the estimates process during the last fortnight that we were here, has been nothing short of disgraceful. For the Department of Infrastructure and Transport to have told the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Wednesday evening that negotiations with the Tasmanian government had not yet been finalised and that final decisions were a couple of weeks away, while at the very same time the media had an embargoed media release from the minister indicating how some of the funding was to be spent, is nothing short of a disgrace, in my view. The committee clearly felt misled by the evidence that was given. The following morning I received a phone call from a witness to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into these bills. That person told me that the evidence I had been given at estimates was wrong, which indicates to me that the Senate should consider very closely the evidence that was given to it during those hearings, despite the denials that have come back in writing from the minister.
Industry in my state thought that the $20 million was going to assist them with exports. They were quite rightly disappointed to find that $4 million was being put into Tasmanian government-owned infrastructure. Mr Deputy President, I know that you as a Burnie boy would have some real interest in the investment that is being made in the port of Burnie. That investment is important; I will not deny it. That is an important investment that is being made. I live on the north-west coast, in Devonport, like Senator Urquhart. I spend time with my office looking out over the port, watching the port operations and understanding how vital it is to our home state. But that funding should have been given to the industry to do what the government told them it was going to do and what the government gave them the impression it was going to do: assist them with their export costs in the short term. The money being spent on the Burnie port is a medium- to long-term solution and should have been part of another funding package, if it was going to be spent in that area. It spent another $1.5 million setting up a committee, effectively doing work the Tasmanian government should have been doing in the past. There is no integrated transport plan for my home state of Tasmania and we still suffer from ad hoc decision making in Tasmania. There was $150 million allocated to the port of Bell Bay for upgrade work, yet progressively shipping companies have been pulling out of there.
The impact on Tasmanian exports is part of that problem but it is also part of a global change in the way that the shipping industry operates. Globally, export ships are getting larger; they need access to the larger airports and therefore Melbourne is becoming the regional export hub. That is one of the reasons that we are being affected, but it is also one of the reasons that we need to make sure that our shipping around the Australian coastline is globally cost competitive. We are not going to be able to compete in global markets unless we ensure a competitive industry here in Australia. We have heard expressed over the last couple of years significant concerns about our manufacturing sector and its cost competitiveness and its place in the global market.
One of the significant costs being felt by our manufacturers is the cost of shipping around Australia. I will give an example, again from my home state of Tasmania. A major food manufacturing plant, Simplot, estimates that the cost to it of the removal of continuing voyage permits is in the vicinity of $7 million a year. Coles will not give it that money, Kentucky Fried will not, McDonald's will not and Hungry Jacks will not. It means that it will lose markets—and it has lost markets. When we see potato farmers in Tasmania complaining that they have to leave their potatoes in the ground and McCain move all its vegetable processing to New Zealand because it is not cost competitive, we know that the cost of shipping is one of the elements that is affecting that. That is $7 million for the additional cost of shipping that is making an impact on the industry.
The carbon tax is another cost, of $8 million a year, imposed by this government on that plant. None of those companies is going to give Simplot any of that money. Woolworths has said that the cost of its carbon tax is something in the order of $64 million. It is going to absorb that, but it means it will not accept cost increases from the carbon tax from any of their suppliers, either, unless they can justify it. Coles has said the same sort of thing. So the cost of shipping, the cost of getting produce in and out of this country, and particularly on and off my home state of Tasmania, is absolutely vital. If you go back and look at history you will see that whenever there has been an increase in access to Tasmania and particularly a cost reduction in access to Tasmania there has been a blip up in the economy. That is a clear indicator that access and the cost of access is vital to my home state of Tasmania.
Shipping, as I have said, is a global industry. We need to ensure that we are cost competitive globally. We cannot be imposing artificial restrictions on our shipping sector if we are going to be competitive. We do not want, as the petroleum industry has said to us, the potential impacts from shortages of petroleum and fuel in Tasmania because they cannot be certain or they cannot predict 12 months in advance, as this legislation determines, the shipping movements that they will need to move the petroleum backwards and forwards and in and out of the state. We just cannot afford to be putting those artificial restrictions in place. Those artificial impositions add cost and uncertainty to the economy, particularly for an island state like mine, which relies so heavily on transport.
I acknowledge, though, that the government have accepted, as I understand it, an amendment from the opposition in the House of Representatives in relation to temporary licences and some of the movements around the countryside of Australia. I think it really important to acknowledge the fact that they are prepared to consider some of the elements that we are putting up. But I really urge the government to consider this. We have had in the last six or eight months significant issues in my home state.
We have seen Western Australia and New South Wales complaining about the fact that they are having to prop us up with GST revenues because our economy is not going all that well. One of the reasons our economy is struggling is the impacts on companies like Simplot, because there is no global export shipping service coming into Tasmania since the AAA service pulled out in May last year. It has gone from costing something like $1,800 to get a container to Singapore to costing an additional $1,300 or $1,400 to get it to Melbourne and then the $1,800 to get it to Singapore. Those are the sorts of costs that we are talking about. Bass Strait is one of the most expensive stretches of water on the globe. We need to make sure that we are cost efficient in doing that if we want my home state—and I do want this—to be playing its part in the overall economy of this country. It is absolutely vital that we do that.
The objective of having a coastal Australian shipping industry is a noble one. I share Senator Ludlam's view. It is great to see the four ships that come in and out of my home town of Devonport and the two Australian owned ships that go into your home town of Burnie, Mr Deputy President, that are coastal ships and Australian owned. I acknowledge Senator Urquhart's comments about employment and the importance of those vessels to our local economy, but we have to be looking at this in the sense of a broader economy.
We have just had the Commonwealth government come in and put $324 million into the Tasmanian health system. Because of the state of the Tasmanian economy, we cannot raise the funds to look after fundamental services in our home state. If we have a strong economy and vibrant manufacturing, export, agricultural, mining and tourism sectors in our home state, we will be able to raise the funds that we need. It will take the pressure off the other states and their GST revenues and allow us to play our part.
My view is that the Greens support these bills because they are all about imposing cost on a whole range of industries. They are about imposing cost on the mining sector, the forestry sector and the fishing sector. They do not want to see economies of scale. They want to make them globally uneconomic to operate so they can have them shut down at a local level. That is why the Greens are supporting these bills. It is not because of any love for the maritime workers of Australia or the Australian shipping industry. They want to see us move back towards cottage-style business and industry. They do not want to see us operating at a globally competitive level. They just want us to scale everything back, to shut everything down, to close off huge areas of Australia to Australians and lock Australians out of Australia. That is why they are supporting this legislation. The Greens are quite happy to see all those additional costs imposed on our industries to make them unsustainable and uneconomical on a global scale. They are not interested in global markets. They do not want global markets. They want to close everything back down to a local level. That is the fundamental reason behind their stance.
The government claims to support our manufacturing sector, our agricultural sector and our food-processing industry, but these are real impacts and there is not just one. This government has done a number of things. I have already mentioned some of them. They have taken away the capacity for continuing voyage permits, adding cost to our food-processing sector, and they are losing markets as a result. We are losing jobs and volume. With that volume and those jobs comes economic viability. If you go below a certain level you will start looking at the viability of the entire business. We are seeing that with companies, as I said before, like McCain, who are leaving Tasmania and Australia with their vegetable processing.
Here we have a government who continue to impose all of these costs on our businesses and industries—red tape, regulatory burdens, labour costs and all of these things. We need to be considering how we remove costs and burdens from our businesses. Adding additional costs through unnecessary regulatory processes around our shipping is not the way to do it. As I said, the motive to have an Australian shipping industry is a noble one, but let us not do it at the cost of the rest of the economy. Let us not do it at the cost of my home state of Tasmania, because it is having that effect. There is no question that that is the case. There are examples of it on the record already. When I look at a company like Cement Australia, dry bulk goods shippers, I see that they are going to wear a significant cost because of the carbon tax. They are also going to wear a significant cost as a result of this legislation. I can tell you the workers at that plant are very, very concerned about their futures because they are having costs continually added to the business that they work in.
The government will tell us that the additional cost of the carbon tax is minimal. I can tell you that in Tasmania it is going to be felt more than the national average because we have the additional cost of shipping. I know it adds over one per cent to the additional cost of shipping that is going to be added in Tasmania because I have spoken to the businesses who are working out the costs. But it is not just those costs. Even TT-Line, the Tasmanian government owned business, have said that their shipping costs are going to go up in excess of 10 per cent as of 1 July, the carbon tax being one of the reasons.
So we continue to add and add costs to business. We then look at the economy and ask: why is the Tasmanian economy in such a terrible state? On the face of things, most people in Tasmania say it is because of the absolutely hopeless government we have down there that is in coalition with the Greens. It has just destroyed confidence. That, on the face of it, is true, but you have all of these other underlying effects. You have a government that is making ad hoc decisions without any plans, at the whim of the Greens, closing down industries and destroying the investment confidence in the state.
But you also have these other additional costs. The federal government never looks at them as a whole. They will use a national average to say the impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living, for example, is 0.7 per cent. But look at the Bass Strait islands, which also have important manufacturing industries. They are looking at significant costs to their businesses. King Island beef and King Island cheese are some of the best known brand names in Australia. The impact on them of the cost of shipping is going to be significant. It is already high because they are out in the middle of Bass Strait. They are 100 per cent reliant on shipping for the life of their businesses, yet here we have a government that continues to impose additional costs. Each time they say it is only an incremental cost, that it is only a small amount, but they do not add it all up.
So you put $7 million here as the cost on Simplot for the loss of continuing voyage permits and they lose one of their potato chip supply contracts in South Australia as a result. You put another $8 million on top of that for the cost of the carbon tax. How long before they are no longer sustainable? I have to say this company is being very proactive. It is working very hard cooperatively with its growers to ensure that it maintains contracts. It has taken the potatoes this year that it was contracted to take, but it does not have the capacity to take extra when the farmers have a good year. So when the farmers have a good year where is the payoff? There isn't one. Farmers are giving away potatoes with a bale of pea straw at the moment in Tasmania because they cannot sell them to the processors. That is the situation that is occurring. Those sorts of impacts are coming because this government continues to impose additional costs on industry. It might only be incremental each time the government does it, but it continues to add up.
The one thing that we need in this country is cost competitive transport. It is a large country. Huge amounts of our bulk goods, particularly our dry bulk goods, are shipped around the coastline and it is important that we do this in a globally competitive manner. We live in a global economy now. We are seeing the results of that. We are feeling the results of that in our economy. I am not saying they should pay Third World wages—I am not saying any of that, so do not accuse me of that—but we must not put in place artificial regulatory burdens that add additional costs. I have said a number of times that to have an Australian owned shipping industry is a noble idea, but it must be cost competitive so that the rest of our industries that rely on shipping—and my home state in particular is dependent on it—can thrive economically. Otherwise, you are going to have to continue to subsidise my home state. You are going to have to continue to pour money in there when you do not need to.
We need to change the government so we can get some decent decision making—that is granted. That has to occur and the sooner the better. The sooner we get rid of this absolutely hopeless Labor-Green government in Tasmania the better for all of us in my home state. But we do not need the Commonwealth government continuing to impose additional costs that make us unviable economically.
I am very pleased to support of these bills before the Senate today. I must say I nearly fell asleep during Senator Colbeck's presentation, but let me tell you, Senator Colbeck: we know what it is about. It is about trying to reduce the conditions of seafarers both here and internationally. I was on the committee and I could see what the business people were pushing for. They want to reduce the wages and conditions of seafarers in this country. They do not want to give seafarers a fair go. Your definition of 'globalisation' is exactly what you claim it is not; it is about trying to push the wages and conditions in this country down to the lowest level.
Absolute rubbish.
Senator Macdonald, if you would stop—
Senator Cameron, please stop worrying about the interjections and please address your remarks to the chair.
I am never worried about interjections; the more the merrier—certainly from Senator Macdonald and Senator Colbeck. That is fine. It is clear that the two people from the coalition who have contributed to the debate on the bill today really do not understand what it is about—and what would you expect from the coalition? This is a coalition with absolute economic incompetence, with only one argument about trying to improve productivity. We hear about productivity and costs. What was their approach, in the 11½ years of the Howard government? Their approach was to try to destroy the wages and conditions of workers in this country, to try to force them down to the bottom. That is the coalition, and they are waiting with Work Choices in their back pockets, waiting to come back, waiting to support big business and trying to drive wages and conditions down. We heard from Senator Joyce and Senator Colbeck. Let me give a bit of advice to Senator Colbeck: you should stop worrying about this bill, because this is a bill that will benefit Tasmania. What you should do—
Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Cameron has been around long enough to know that he should not address senators across the table and that his remarks should be through the chair.
There is no point of order. I have brought this to Senator Cameron's attention.
Thank you. Through the chair, I would ask Senator Colbeck to concentrate on the real issues for Tasmania. The real issues for Tasmania are to get an effective, efficient shipping fleet of long-term viability in this country, and that is what this bill is about. If the Tasmanian senators actually stood up here and fought for Tasmania, they would be fighting against the sycophantic approach by the Western Australian Liberal Party towards Twiggy Forrest, Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer, who are in there arguing that all the money should be in Western Australia or in Queensland and that Tasmania should be left to swing. That is the position. It is okay for Senator Colbeck to leave the chamber now, but I have a bit of advice for him, through the chair: if you want to stand up for Tasmania then stand up against the mining magnates who want to rip back any decent taxation from this country.
We are a nation that has been built on shipping. We need a viable, growing shipping industry. But that has to be done on decent wages and decent conditions. We hear, 'We're in a globalised economy,' but that is simply code for: 'We want overseas maritime workers to be plying their trade in this country on the lowest wages and conditions possible.' That is what the coalition want. That is what they have always been about. That is why the Howard government—and I see Senator Sinodinos has just walked in—was up to its neck in ripping away the conditions of maritime workers in this country. That is why Senator Sinodinos was sitting around the cabinet table advising John Howard to do something about the carbon price on one hand and then backflipping when he came in here. This is the absolute hypocrisy of the coalition. Their idea of improving productivity is to put dogs on the wharves, to get the thugs on the wharves with their balaclavas, to try to get rid of workers who are earning a decent wage and to put in lower wages and conditions. We all know what the coalition is about. But you have to understand that the MUA is here to stay. They are going to have decent conditions on the wharves and decent conditions in the industries they are involved in.
The arguments being put forward by Senator Joyce do not bear up under any analysis whatsoever. I do not often agree with Senator Joyce, but I do agree with him on the Productivity Commission—you have to take it with a big grain of salt, given its ideological bent to come after working people wherever it can. Senator Joyce's view of the Productivity Commission—on the public record—is that you should use Productivity Commission reports for toilet paper. That is his argument. Yet he comes in here today because the coalition has said, 'You've got to oppose this bill.' And what does he argue for? He argues for a Productivity Commission inquiry. What a disingenuous approach from Senator Joyce. On one hand, he says to use the Productivity Commission reports for toilet paper—even I do not say that!—and, on the other hand, he says, 'Let's have a Productivity Commission inquiry.' What a joke. What a load of rubbish from the coalition—a Productivity Commission inquiry about making sure we get decent wages and conditions and a decent industry in this country. Well, Senator Joyce just gave the game away.
I think Senator Urquhart outlined earlier the National Party's policy on shipping. What is the National Party's policy on shipping? The National Party's policy on shipping is, almost word for word, this bill—what the government is seeking to do. Senator Joyce needs some credibility. I know he does not have a lot of credibility on an economic basis. I know he got sacked because he could not cop his shadow portfolio in finance. But he has to have a little bit of credibility left, and he should support the National Party policy, which says, on page 65, that they would introduce a tonnage tax. I do not suppose that is a 'great big new tax', but they want to introduce a tonnage tax, and they said that if they were in power they would do that from 2011-12. That company tax would be on an opt-in basis, linked to mandatory training arrangements. So the National Party proposes mandatory training arrangements for the industry, and we support that view. But they would introduce a national system of training support under the supervision of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Again, we will cop to that. Also, they would examine ways to reduce the income tax disadvantage suffered by Australian seafarers operating outside Australian waters, compared with seafarers from other nations.
Well, now is the chance for the National Party, instead of getting up here making disingenuous speeches they do not actually believe in, as Senator Joyce did. He had to spend half his speech talking about a carbon price when he does not understand the industry and does not know the benefits that this will provide for the industry. The National Party could now stand up and actually support its policy, what it stands for. Stop flip-flopping around every time the Liberal Party tells you that you cannot support your own policy. Stand up for your own policy and support this bill. That is what you should be doing.
A tonnage tax is on the National Party platform. Ours is a zero tax rate, as recommended by the industry and the Treasury. So we can get some agreement on that. They want a national training system. The bipartisan committee supported that, and so does Labor's shipping bill. We want a tax exemption for Australian seafarers, and the National Party support that. We want to establish a second register, and so do the National Party. So, when this bill comes to the floor, I would expect the National Party to support their own policy by supporting this bill. That is the right thing to do. This is a good bill. It is about ensuring that we have an industry in this country that can help service the needs of Australia. We are a shipping nation and we should support our shipping industry and make sure that we do the right thing by the industry.
Clearly, there was political inference in the shipping industry under the Howard government. It was supported by Senator Sinodinos. So when Senator Sinodinos gets up on his feet here you will know that he was the guy who sat around with John Howard and Peter Reith saying, 'Crush the MUA. Put the dogs on the docks. Put the thugs on the docks. We will drive wages down.' That is Senator Sinodinos for you. The Australian said that, in Senator Sinodinos, a great new economic mind was coming into parliament. Well, Senator Sinodinos sat with John Howard and said, 'How do we fix our economic problems? We try to destroy the MUA. We try to drive wages and conditions down for workers all over this country.' Senator Sinodinos will continue that when he stands up here and opposes this bill.
This is about a sophisticated economic development position, taking this country forward. It is not about the lowest common denominator. It is not about trying to cut costs at the expense of maritime workers or at the expense of maritime workers' jobs. It is about training, about cooperation and a compact, and it is about sophisticated tax support for the industry. These are things that happen overseas, but in the 11½ years that the Howard government were in office they never once thought about it.
So we will have Senator Sinodinos, the so-called economic guru, railing against government interference—yet when he was sitting there with John Howard, working out how we should interfere in industry, what was his plan? His plan was to put the Alsatians on the docks. Put the Rottweilers on the docks. Put the thugs on the docks. That is what was done by the Howard government, supported in the Senate by Senator Macdonald.
They are all sitting there opposing this bill, a bill that is based on a sophisticated approach to industry development. It will bring our industry into line with what happens in about 40 other countries, which is to support our industry with a decent tax base. But what you will get is speeches like the ones we got from Senator Colbeck and from Senator Joyce. I suppose Senator Sinodinos will be a little bit more sophisticated than Senator Joyce, but that will not be very hard.
My view is that, in talking about the problems the country is facing, those problems are not with this bill. This bill is about improving the lot of the industry and the life of maritime workers. It is about improving every aspect of the industry through training and sophisticated tax approaches, to build our industry. It is not about artificial restrictions, as Senator Colbeck would have it. It is not about the cost of shipping, because this will be done in a cost-effective way, a sophisticated way, that means we will have a decent industry in this country. When Senator Sinodinos gets up to speak, that is what he should speak about. He should speak about getting a decent, sophisticated industry in this country that is about bringing Australia back to what it was: a strong maritime nation capable of moving some of our own goods, with workers getting decent wages and conditions. That is the problem.
Here you have to pay decent wages and provide decent conditions. I got a bit sick and tired of listening to some of the submissions at the Senate inquiry. Some of the dry goods people came in and said that they wanted to continue to exploit overseas maritime workers, by keeping them on wages as low as possible, to keep costs down in this country. That is not the way to do business. We have to be a bit more sophisticated than that.
After hearing the speeches from the other side this morning, senators would well know that those opposite have no capacity to deliver on that. They have no understanding of the real drivers of the industry. It is simply about cost. It is not about the tax base and making sure it helps that industry. It is not about the training in the industry. It is not about a compact in the industry, where the unions can sit down with the employers and improve the productive performance of the industry. It has nothing to do with that. They are simply responding, as they always do, to business saying, 'This will cost us a little bit extra.' They run behind their big business mates and will oppose anything that is in the interests of the workers in this country. They will oppose sophisticated approaches because they are all about taking the low road in industrial relations and the low road in productivity. That was borne out by the two speeches we heard this morning.
May I commend the previous speaker on his address, because it confirmed everything we would expect from Senator Cameron: no vision for the future, nothing positive, just an attack on the other side of politics—play the man, not the ball.
Let me begin by saying that as someone who was born in Newcastle, whose father was a seafarer and a member of the Seamen's Union, in the days when the general-secretary of that union was Eliot V Elliot, I have a long familiarity with the maritime trade and I respect the trade and the seafarers in it, because it is not always the safest or most comfortable of occupations. In the time that my father was a member of the Seamen's Union of Australia, I think he enjoyed the camaraderie on the ships, even though his English was not as good as it should have been. So it is good that there are members of the MUA here. My remarks are not addressed to them in the sense of saying, 'You are the problem; you are the villains.' That is not what this is about. What this country is about is how we bring people together; it is about how we create a sense of positivity and a vision for the future that is as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. The reason I say that is that, while there are elements of this bill that are understandable, in the sense of why we have gone down this road to seek to match some of the tax concessions and other benefits that are offered in the international sea trade, given the peculiar conditions that do apply in that trade, we do have to understand—and this is one of the obligations that we have as legislators—and acknowledge that whenever we make decisions, or confer 'benefits' in one sector, we have to make sure that those benefits are not at the cost of other sectors and that therefore the overall benefit to the national economy is not in fact a negative.
In saying that, I recognise, as I said before, the peculiar nature of the world's shipping industry. It is a very competitive industry. It is subject to a lot of volatility—there are times when shipping is in surplus, and that drives down rates and puts added competitive pressures on people, and they therefore seek to undercut each other; there are other times when there is a deficit of shipping and rates tend to go up. In recent times we have had pressure on rates to go up, as people realised they could not keep undercutting each other. So we recognise that volatility and we also recognise the nature of the international flags of convenience and all the other arrangements that operate in international shipping that create a capacity for shipowners to pay less tax in certain jurisdictions. That puts more pressure on other jurisdictions, such as ours, where we have, if you like, more of a First World tax regime.
I also recognise that around the world, starting with the US and the Jones act, there are a lot of First World countries that do restrict shipping with policies of cabotage, and that, in the context of international trade negotiations that are going on at the moment, there is not much progress being made on issues like removing cabotage—because, ultimately, if we are to have free trade and investment, that means all countries must take off their restrictions. So I recognise that we are playing on a very unlevel playing field.
But, in that context, we have before us a set of bills that do seek to create some very special conditions in the maritime industry. It would be fantastic if we could extend these conditions in Australia so that, in any industry in Australia where there was some potential competition and where there was some benefit conferred by foreign governments, we would seek as a government to match that. But in a sense, looking at this from the national economy perspective, we cannot do that; so we have to look at the costs and benefits of what we do in one sector and the impact that has on other sectors.
In looking at the costs and benefits of this legislation, we therefore have to take—and this is why my colleague Senator Joyce was supporting a Productivity Commission inquiry—an economy-wide view of how this sort of legislation would work. We have to take into account the impact of any increased red tape or regulation. We have to take into account the potential impact of increased costs for shippers and users of imported products and the like. We have to take into account, in other words, what the economists like to call the general equilibrium effects of doing things in one sector as they cross over into other sectors.
One other point I would like to make is that in relation to anything that involves international trade there is a lot of literature around, but often there are benefits in moving unilaterally on trade restrictions. Often we keep restrictions back as bargaining chips in international trade negotiations, and we can certainly do that with cabotage. But my point is this: there are also a lot of benefits to be gained from unilaterally moving to take advantage of cheap foreign goods and services that are potentially available, including in the shipping area, if they have benefits for the broader economy. But, as I said before, today is not the day to go into that. My point is simply that I support what Senator Joyce has said in relation to a Productivity Commission inquiry. That is a canvas on which we can look at the costs and benefits of going down this route as a whole.
Let me—as someone who was also involved in the events of 1998 around the wharves—paint the context of that. That was a context where our cranage rates were seen as being very low, by international standards, for a First World country. The issue was that, during the Hawke-Keating era, despite various attempts to address that, we had not made sufficient progress. That is why there had to be some sort of breakthrough and, in concert with the industry, there was an attempt by the Howard government to break through on the wharves—yes, some of it was not particularly pretty, but it was a situation that seemed to have gone beyond the point of dialogue and something needed to be done to cut through, and reforms were made. But since then there has been slippage on those reforms. As John Howard once said, reform is one of those ever-receding finish lines: we need continuing reform. This package will aid the industry in a very short term sense. But, unless the productivity compact that the MUA and others are talking about delivers real, enduring, sustainable productivity change, we will not have the shipping industry we deserve. Make no mistake, with our freight task set to double and even treble by 2020 along the eastern seaboard, coastal shipping must play a bigger role. There is an opportunity there. The industry and the union have to be more entrepreneurial and more willing to take risks to get rid of some of the work practices of the past in order to do this. Some people may say, 'We'll never match the wage rates or costs of some jurisdictions overseas.' I think that is defeatist. Why can't we look at greater productivity and innovation? Why can't everything be on the table that potentially restricts our capacity to do better? We are great innovators in Australia. We have a capacity to do that in this sector as well. I am very concerned that we do not have a situation where the government gives away these benefits, in good faith saying that these are being put on the table, and in return the productivity compact does not deliver the change that we are looking for. This is not about reducing wages. That is unsustainable. We all know that. If we reduce wages in one sector that just encourages people to leave that sector and go somewhere else. That does not actually build up an industry. What builds up an industry is when you create incentives for greater productivity and wages go up off the back of that. That is what we are about. That is positivity. That is about being optimistic about the industry of the future.
I suppose what I am saying is that in seeking to refer this matter to the Productivity Commission we also want to give time to see what will happen as a result of the productivity compact that the industry is putting together with the MUA and other stakeholders. We strongly support that process going forward because of all the evidence we have received from people within the industry. It is easy for someone like Senator Cameron to deride people in the industry and say that they have a vested interest. Of course they have got a vested interest. Their livelihoods are at stake as well. They want to know that they will be able to ship.
We have had evidence from people within the industry that they are concerned about the potential impact of costs on them. So we need someone who is impartial, a third party, to weigh up that evidence. That is not to cast aspersions on the public servants who have put together the regulatory impact statement; but, by definition, they say that they were unable to take into account actual numbers around what the productivity compact could do, because they had to take at face value that there will be a productivity compact and assume that it would have the benefits and the positive effects that the government says it will. So we need a rigorous process to look at this.
In that regard I have come across a number of comments from various people within the industry. Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics announced on 30 May that they could not commit to engaging the coastal shipping after 1 July, when the legislation takes effect. They stated:
Based on these proposed changes and new requirements it may become very difficult for WWL to continue participating in the coastal trade.
On 12 June, online marine publication Lloyd's List published an article entitled 'Coastal shipping reforms create contrary and adverse outcomes' highlights concerns with the shipping reform package. It states:
Minister ... Albanese’s new licensing regime, designed to promote Australian participation in coastal shipping, appears to be in the process of creating unintended consequences and adverse results.
Maritime executives argue that the system as a whole could also work to the disadvantage of domestic carriers. Shippers may end up moving large, heavy or unwieldy cargo by road rather than by ship. And Australian cargo shippers look likely to be put at a disadvantage as carriers reduce service offerings. Break bulk carriers, especially tramp operators, envisage that the requirements for being granted a one-year temporary licence, which involves notifying bureaucrats of an intended minimum of five voyages in advance, will likely result in them being unable to offer a service.
Shipping Australia in its submission to the House committee inquiry states:
The overall effectiveness of the Bills taken as a whole is, in our view, dependent on the productivity improvements that will arise from the proposed compact between the unions and employers.
That is why, as I say, it would be good to have time for the Productivity Commission to go through that process. I recognise in any negotiation that it is useful to be able to say, 'The government have delivered on their end; therefore, it is now up to us as unions and employers to get together.' My point is simply this: there needs to be an objective process to make sure that what is being put on the table as genuine cost reductions, productivity improvements and innovations will deliver the sorts of benefits that the government's own regulatory impact statement is suggesting should come forward out of this particular shipping industry reform program.
I go back to an issue raised by Senator Cameron in his contribution about the low road versus the high road on productivity, and that is: whatever changes the coalition may ultimately make to industrial relations policy, shifting the balance more towards the centre, the point is that they are all aimed at promoting productivity. If you go back and look at the record of the Howard government, including in the period of the dreaded Work Choices—the industrial relations policy that dare not speak its name—real wages were going up, productivity was going up and the economy was going strongly ahead. It is possible to achieve that sort of win-win situation. Too often this government has taken the view that it has to intervene to protect people. The best way to protect people is to educate them and to help make them strong and dependent on their own capacity to find their way in the world. There is no way you can do this simply by the government always acting as the referee because in the long run you can never create really independent, capable people if they are always dependent on government propping them up. I fear that this is a sector where for too long governments have intervened in various ways and the results have not been what they should have been.
In summary, I support Senator Joyce's comments and the comments of all of my colleagues, including Senator Colbeck, who spoke about the particular issues in Tasmania. On both sides of the house there is a commitment to having an internationally viable shipping industry and, as I said before, we recognise the unlevel playing field that has developed in this particular sector. But it is not a reason why we should necessarily put forward ideas in this sector which perhaps provide an advantage to this sector over other sectors and may not be providing a national net benefit. On that point, I finish my remarks.
I am pleased to speak in support of the Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Bill 2012 and related bills. They are vitally important to the ongoing sustainability of Australia's domestic shipping industry: setting the right conditions for operators to do business and maintain Australian flagships, restoring fairness to the architecture of the system of industrial relations that underpins Australian flagships, promoting health and safety in what is an inherently dangerous occupation and, importantly, providing incentives for the provision of training and the skilling of the workforce to ensure its long-term sustainability. We are an island nation and 99 per cent of Australia's international trade is conducted by ship. More than $200 billion worth of product is transported from our ports every year. This represents around 10 per cent of global sea-based trade. Australia has become the fourth largest carrier of sea trade on the planet. But despite the fact that 99 per cent of Australia's trade is conducted by ship, less than one-fifth of the trade is carried by an Australian merchant fleet. There are currently only 22 major trade ships carrying the Australian flag. This compares to 55 flagged Australian ships during the years of the Keating government in 1995. So over that period we have had a reduction by more than half in the number of Australian flagships and that slow decline has happened while Australian exports to the rest of the world have been growing. That is why these bills are so important and that is why the Senate must pass these bills. These bills mean that productivity and growth will be returned to the Australian shipping industry. They are a significant set of reforms that will revitalise an industry that was unfortunately forgotten during the Howard years.
The Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Bill and the Tax Laws Amendment (Shipping Reform) Bill are the first pillars of the reform package and they are vital to Australian shipping operators. Our shipping companies are competing against foreign operators that do have competitive taxation regimes and regulation of employment arrangements. The reforms contained in these bills will ensure that Australian flagged ships are provided with the same incentives: a zero rate of tax, meaning income from Australian flagged passenger and cargo vessels will not attract company tax; accelerated depreciation arrangements, meaning that Australian flagged vessels can now depreciate ships over 10 years instead of the current 20-year period; rollover relief for selected capital assets, meaning that when a ship is sold for profit the tax liability can be deferred by replacing the sold vehicles; tax exemptions for seafarers working overseas on qualifying vessels, meaning that a refundable tax offset will be available to Australian employers of Australian resident seafarers engaged in international trade; and, a royalty withholding tax exemption where vessels are leased by an Australian company from foreign owners under a demise or bareboat charter. These are a fantastic new set of opportunities and set of conditions for a fair and reasonable shipping industry in Australia.
The Shipping Registration Amendment (Australian International Shipping Register) Bill is the second part of the reform package. That will ensure that the Australian International Shipping Register will help our industry grow and take advantage of the enormous opportunities created by growth in the export shipping sector. Vessels on the international register will be Australian flagged. When international vessels undertake an overseas voyage, they must provide the crew with terms and conditions in line with the Maritime Labour Convention. This is the same practice used by major maritime nations that offer international registers. When Australian international shipping register vessels work domestic coastal routes, importantly all the crew, irrespective of nationality, will be covered by the Fair Work Act. This will remove that insidious practice that occurred under the Howard government of 'ships of shame' operating in Australian waters, employing foreign crew and giving them pay and conditions inferior to the basic standards provided by fair industrial relations laws in this country. Importantly, these bills will also promote safety. The crews will be covered by Australian domestic occupational health and safety laws and also Australian environmental laws.
This issue is close and dear to my heart. My grandfather was a wharfie. He worked at the Hungry Mile in Sydney for many years in the days when it was tough to work as a wharfie. He was quite badly injured on the job and hospitalised for a significant time. He broke his leg and fractured his pelvis and was in hospital for a couple of months. During his period of hospitalisation not once did anyone from the company that he worked for come to visit him or his family, with any concern for his welfare. These were the days before adequate occupational health and safety laws and adequate coverage of a person's income through workers compensation.
Naturally his family were concerned about how they would survive. But they survived for one reason. That reason was that my father was a member of his union, the Waterside Workers Federation. During his period in hospital, at least once a week and sometimes two or three times a week the union organiser, a fellow by the name of Tas Bull, someone who went on to lead that union and become a great leader and promoter of workplace rights in this country, would visit. He made sure that our family never went without and that the family had the ability to survive. That is the tradition in which the union, now the MUA, has operated in this country. That is the reason why my grandmother always said to me in the wake of that accident, 'Always join the union and remember what the union did for our family. We wouldn't have survived without them.' No-one from the company ever came down to visit my grandfather in hospital and ensure that he was okay and that the family could survive. But his mates on the wharves, the wharfies, who were members of the union, regularly carried the hat around and ensured that there was an income for the family to survive. So it is important that we continue to promote occupational health and safety and adequate workers compensation laws for people working on our wharves and for those who are working in seafaring around our coast. These laws do that. They restore fairness and equity which, unfortunately, was diminished during the years of the Howard government. I find it somewhat remarkable that Senator Sinodinos would refer to what occurred on the wharves in 1998, when we saw those insidious images of dogs and people in balaclavas attacking Australian workers and their conditions, as a breakthrough. It was nothing less than a disaster. It was a disgrace and, in the end, was ultimately found to be illegal by the Australian courts.
This government does not promote those sorts of practices and will not allow them to occur on Australian wharves or in our domestic shipping industry. That is why these laws are important. We prefer to promote cooperation between seafarers and their employers and between wharfies and their employers as a means of promoting productivity and ensuring that we are dealing with the issues faced from international competition. These bills will promote cooperation.
The bills will provide for the introduction of the Maritime Workforce Development Forum. Our maritime industry currently employs around 14,000 people and one of the greatest challenges it faces, similar to the rest of Australian industry, is an ageing workforce. The current average age across the sector is almost 45. Skills, education and training must be at the heart of any industry to see it grow and prosper. The Maritime Workforce Development Forum, which is an important part of these reforms, will address areas that are fundamental to building our skills base. This will include a workforce plan for the medium term to address issues, including the ageing workforce and the most immediate skills gaps.
The bills are a product of an extensive period of consultation with industry, and amendments to the bills have been introduced in response to issues raised by stakeholders through the parliamentary inquiries. In February 2009, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport formed an advisory group to work together to implement the Rebuilding Australia's coastal shipping industry report recommendations. A discussion paper was released on 1 December 2010 and submissions from the industry provided a great amount of feedback on the proposed reforms that are before the Senate today.
I do take issue with some of the comments raised by Senator Sinodinos and other speakers in relation to Simplot's comments both to the parliamentary committee and publicly regarding these reforms. The comments made by others in respect of the comments by Simplot are quite simply misleading. Simplot's comments relate to increased costs for services at Bell Bay. They are not related to shipping reforms. Simplot denies the $7 million figure that has been put by others, so it is misleading for some senators to come into this place and use issues associated with other occurrences in the world economy as opposition to these reforms.
The feedback from many involved in the consultation period and from the parliamentary inquiries was positive. Many understand that these reforms are vital to Australian shipping. This is a sector of our economy that must be provided with the right tax incentives and conditions for investment and the right conditions to ensure fairness and reasonableness in the provision of wages, conditions and occupational health and safety laws to ensure that this industry can grow and flourish. The Stronger Shipping for a Stronger Economy package corrects the mistakes made by previous governments in an important industry for our economy. It replaces years of decline and sets our shipping industry on a steady course with an even keel towards growth and prosperity. I commend the bills to the Senate.
I remain nonplussed as to what we are doing in this place debating this particular legislation since it will in no way achieve the goals that have been set by the minister and the government. Since the Navigation Act 1912, coastal shipping permits have always protected Australian flagged vessels but, unfortunately, they have not been competitive internationally, they have not been viable and they are not viable now. I am pleased to see that there was one point of commonality with Senator Thistlethwaite, and that is that both of us in fact had grandfathers who were union members, in my case, of the Lumpers Union on the Fremantle wharves around the 1920s and 1930s. So I come to this particular argument with the same degree of enthusiasm but from a different perspective because mine is one of trying to encourage new business and trying to grow business.
Other speakers have mentioned the fact that we are a coastal nation and that 99 per cent of our export and import activity comes by sea. The other point to be made is that Asia is the growing region of the world. Europe is now closed. Europe is declining not only in terms of numbers but also economically and we are seeing the biggest shift in the world economy since the industrial revolution to Asia. We also know that to survive and to take our place in the Asian world we have to be internationally competitive with Asian suppliers, and this legislation is simply not going to do that.
We are aware that under the current legislation, as in the past and as will be in the future, Australian registered vessels already have priority in the movement of cargo within our coastal trade. So one must ask the question: why and how is it that we have seen such a decline in the number of coastal vessels under the Australian flag? It is now some 22 and going down. Do we think that these incentives, as they are described in the legislation, are going to do anything to encourage Australian-flagged ships to remain so or indeed to encourage overseas shipowners to have their vessels Australian flagged? The answer regrettably is no, they are not. Why? Because countries with which we compete, including Singapore and others, already offer the same sorts of incentives that are contained within this legislation. So, unfortunately, of themselves these are not going to be attractive to the owners of Australian-flagged ships and, in particular, incoming overseas shipowners, and I want to go into that in more detail.
We know that if we are going to see an increase in the Australian flagged, owned and controlled coastal shipping industry it has got to be through overseas shipowners coming with their ships into our waters and wanting to have their vessels within our coastal passage trade. What is the particular impact of all this on my state of Western Australia? And, of course, Madam Deputy President Boyce, you would be well aware, as with your state of Queensland, of the importance to this national economy of the resources sector and the primary production sector in our states. Let me quote some figures just to put it into perspective for you. For Western Australia last year, 2010-11, overall production—and this is mainly from iron ore—in the Pilbara region was $57.4 billion of trade. For the offshore petroleum industry, and this is separate to the figures that I have just given you and principally out of the North West Shelf and the Pilbara, it was $23 billion last year and we know that that figure is increasing. If I look at the Goldfields-Esperance region, including gold but also other mineral commodities, I see it was $8½ billion last year. Those are all over vast distances within my state. If I look at the Midwest region based around Geraldton, I see a figure of $2.6 billion. But, with the construction of the Oakajee port and the opening up of the magnetite iron ore industry, the Midwest will be another Pilbara, so that figure of $2.6 billion will pale into insignificance as the magnetite industry gets underway. The only other figure to give you is from the Wheatbelt region. This is based principally on grain but there is also $1¼ billion of iron ore in the Wheatbelt region. That figure is $2.5 billion.
Why is all of this important? Because of the urgent need for us to have an efficient and competitive coastal shipping industry. We know at the moment of the congestion on the roads out of Perth because of the heavy haulage of massive sized equipment. The fact that, because of competition with other users of the road, these loads can only being shipped out of Perth at certain times adds immeasurably to the cost, reducing productivity and inducing delays. The weight of this sort of equipment—often 300 to 400 tonnes—moving on our roads causes damage to the rural road network. You can imagine the challenge associated with getting this equipment over bridges. In fact, it has to be jacked up and moved slowly over those bridges. We in WA, as with those in other states, have got a tremendous incentive to see a rebirth of our coastal shipping trade. Unfortunately, the legislation before the Senate falls far short of allowing us to achieve that.
Out of all this, what do we have? We have poor productivity and we have poor efficiency in the use of resources. So obviously we want to see, and we have the incentive for, so much of this go on to vessels at Fremantle or at Henderson or wherever they are assembled and to go by sea up to the Pilbara ports—or down to the port of Esperance—and to Geraldton et cetera. Unfortunately, we are not going to see it with this legislation because there are no incentives for overseas shipowners to bring their vessels into our waters.
It is my understanding that the legislation falls short particularly with regard to bulk cargoes. We know the circumstance that exists at the moment, that being the single-voyage permits that are available. Under this scheme they will be discontinued. When you have a look at what has occurred in recent times, the difficulty in being able to schedule cargoes further in advance is so obvious to everybody. Inaccurate vessel scheduling, port congestion, last-minute requirements for shipping, weather conditions—we all know the factors that are involved. What we need is legislation that accelerates and facilitates accommodation of the unnecessary or unexpected or unforeseen changes in vessel loadings, schedulings et cetera. The new legislation does not achieve this. It achieves something only on the basis of predicting well into the future what the demands are going to be. Then there is the associated administratively impossible task, from the shipowners', operators' or charterers' point of view, of actually making those changes. It is not obvious to me—and perhaps when the minister speaks he may be able to explain this to us—where the benefit comes of this bureaucracy and this inevitable added cost. I cannot see where it assists anybody.
It is certainly not going to assist an Australian coastal trader. Very often, if the type of vessel that is needed to be used—it might be a vessel for moving heavy haulage, so with a heavy crane, or whatever it is—is not available within our own coastal fleet, then of course an overseas-registered vessel will be necessary. So how it is going to be of benefit to have this long period of congestion and to have this bureaucracy is absolutely beyond me.
I know that the question of fuel—particularly the unavailability of fuel—has been addressed in some of the more recent negotiations. In the consultations that I understand are to come, I hope that matter will be addressed. If not, I hope it will be addressed through a MIM; but, again, we all know the difficulty associated with the on-time delivery of bulk fuel. I recall that, in running a fuel distribution business in Tasmania, more than once the so-called 'just in time' philosophy of delivery of bulk fuel into that state very nearly became 'just too late'. Certainly, trying to predict weeks or months in advance when they would need to schedule those cargoes would be fraught, I believe, with the associated administrative burdens.
I ask: what will the cost impact of this new legislation on customers be? Upon whom will the increased freight rates rest? Upon whom will the inefficiencies rest? And, of course, if there is a substantial move from road to sea transport—and I hope there is, if we can get it right—what will the cost impact on the trucking industry be? How will the trucking industry, drivers, TWU members and others relate? I cannot see how there will be anything other than an increased cost burden which will inevitably be passed on to customers.
The questions that I really want addressed are these. How does this legislation, as it is proposed, increase international competitiveness? How does it attract overseas shipowners to bring their vessels into our waters and have them Australian flagged? What benefits or advantages are there for them over and above those that they currently enjoy? How does the legislation address the past concerns, existing at this time, which have led us to effectively a decimated coastal shipping fleet of 20 or 22 vessels? I cannot see how this legislation is going to change that situation and make it attractive in the first instance to overseas owners or indeed in the longer term to Australian shipowners.
How will this legislation contain costs? Where are the cost savings to the end customer? We are all aware of the significant cost that is freight in our economy. We know what the impact of the infamous carbon tax is going to be on the cost of freight, particularly in my state, where distances are so vast. I was in Kalgoorlie, Karratha and Geraldton in the last 10 days. At the top of everybody's list in those places remote from the capital city is: what is the impost, the increased cost of freight, caused by the carbon tax going to be? If we see this movement, it will not change it.
I ask: how does this legislation reduce red tape? How does it reduce regulation? This Labor government has increased it and introduced new legislation, new regulations. I think the figures I have seen are that, in the term of the combined Rudd and Gillard governments, there have been some 16,000 new regulations to which business is subjected, with the removal of only 76. I want to know on behalf of the Australian people: in this legislation, where do we see a reduction of red tape? I cannot see it.
I want to know how the temporary licence system, to which I have referred, in any way increases productivity. Australia is absolutely in neutral and probably going backwards in its national productivity at this time—a time when its international competitors are actually increasing their productivity. These are the concerns that we should all be addressing in this place.
I ask about the industrial compact between the unions and employers: can somebody from the other side explain to me how that is going to increase productivity? How is it going to protect jobs in the industry? It has been said that this is not about seeing a diminution of incomes, salaries and wages; it is, however, about protecting and growing employment. And yet the legislation, as I see it, will have the opposite effect.
We see linkage to the International Transport Workers Federation, and I think that is to be applauded. Why, for example, in the legislation, do we not see the wages pegged to ITF levels? ITF internationally has a very, very generous wage system, and that of course is to be applauded. It is my understanding that a Filipino able seaman actually earns a higher salary than a general practitioner does in the Philippines, so ITF levels are obviously appropriate. Let us see legislation in place that ties these wages to ITF levels so that the fear of a wages hike after this legislation comes into existence can be allayed and put to rest.
I concur with those of my colleagues who say that before this legislation is passed, before it is imposed on the Australian people, it should be the subject of a Productivity Commission review. I am of the view that if this legislation is going to further diminish the importance of the Australian-flagged industry, as I suspect it will, if this legislation is not going to attract international shipowners to bring their vessels into our waters as Australian-flagged vessels, if this legislation is going to drive up the cost of freight to the end customer and is not going to take freight off roads and onto coastal shipping, then it is a waste of everybody's legislative time. It is therefore my point of view that the legislation in its current form should not be passed. It should be referred to the Productivity Commission so that we can get the view of an independent umpire before we proceed further.
I rise also today to speak on the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012 and associated bills. The coalition recognises that the coastal shipping trade plays a vital role in Australia's freight task. For a variety of reasons, most related to the lack of cost competitiveness of Australian shipping, the number of Australian-registered vessels has declined over the last few years, and there are only 22 Australian-flagged ships operating today. The coalition is supportive of constructive measures to increase the number of Australian vessels internationally and the number used for coastal shipping. However, these bills carry a number of Labor trademarks that make it impossible to support the proposed measures.
As we on this side have come to expect from Labor, these bills have been poorly drafted, with minimal or no consultation with key stakeholders and, where consultation has occurred, with a lack of regard for the advice that has been put forward. These bills have a short implementation frame and they defy common sense. They will serve only to increase red tape and the regulatory burden for industry and the cost of freight. We are not convinced that the five bills that comprise the shipping reform package will stimulate growth in the number of Australian ships on our coast or maximise the use of Australian-flagged vessels.
One of the primary concerns amongst witnesses to the Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry into these bills was the lack of consultation with key stakeholders in relation to the impacts they will have on industry. The first draft of the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill was released for public comment just before Christmas last year; however, a major redraft was required, and a second version of the bill was released in February, together with the other bills comprising the package. This meant that consultation was undertaken for only a few weeks. Shortly thereafter, the minister introduced the package to the parliament—on 22 March 2012. The package that was introduced included new provisions that had not been contemplated in the initial consultation process. Despite this, Labor did not even see fit to complete another regulatory impact statement with department officials at the Senate inquiry. It was adamant that none of the many alterations arising from the redraft would impact the original RIS, but the evidence, both at the hearing and from the submissions, suggested otherwise.
The bills were referred to the House of Reps Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications and the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for consideration, but the House committee was given an extremely limited time frame to examine the bills and the Senate report, only tabled late last week, means that the House did not benefit from the Senate's advice prior to voting on the bills. A number of witnesses to the inquiry put on the public record their disappointment with this lack of consultation. Many witnesses said that they raised their issues and concerns directly with the department and the minister's officers, only to receive stony silence in response. Ms Margie Thompson, a member of the Australian Dry Bulk Shipping Users Group, which collectively accounts for 60 per cent of the coastal shipping task, told the committee that when her group tried to raise their concerns—and their concerns, certainly on their face, seem valid and substantial—they were simply told that the minister had set the policy direction and the department was trying to work the legislation around that. Apparently the minister knows better than Australia's primary users of coastal shipping! It is extraordinary to think that Labor would shut the door on the biggest users of coastal shipping in this country when devising a package of bills that will have such a dramatic impact on the industry. It is valid to ask: what is the purpose of the shipping industry? It is a service industry; it is not an industry that is there for itself; it is there to move freight and to do so as efficiently as possible. Efficiency and timeliness in moving freight have to be the primary concerns when looking at legislation that impacts on coastal shipping. Sure, there are other considerations, but ultimately the industry exists for the reason of moving freight, and that has to be the primary concern.
The lack of consultation is a common characteristic of this government and it is not the first time that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee has heard from witnesses about such concerns. 'The minister knows best' appears to be this government's default response when drafting legislation—until the eleventh hour, when we so often see those opposite scrambling to amend the unworkable as a consequence of their inability to listen to stakeholders and take on board the valid objections and concerns that were raised with them early in the process.
Another major issue raised by witnesses to this inquiry is that the bills are unlikely to meet their objective. To give some perspective on the issue, let me outline the size of the coastal shipping industry. The current market supports 17 Australian vessels that move Australian product around the coast—which is about 70 per cent of the total coastal trading market. Foreign vessels make up the remaining 30 per cent of the market, which is around eight ships. So we are talking about measures designed to foster a greater degree of Australian shipping activity in a market that already has 70 per cent. If it were possible to convert the remaining 30 per cent into Australian-flagged vessels, that would work out to around a further eight ships. That is what we are talking about. We are dealing with a very small industry in terms of coastal trading task, which, in the most wildly optimistic of predictions, could only expect to 'revitalise' the industry to the extent of an additional half a dozen to eight vessels.
It is also of particular concern to me that, when I asked officials from the department of infrastructure and transport at the economics committee inquiry about the effectiveness of the bills, they were reluctant to commit to any guarantees that the bills would actually revitalise Australia's coastal shipping industry. Department officials said it was difficult for them to assess exactly how many vessels would be added to the Australian register or how many companies would take up the incentives to boost the numbers of Australian-flagged vessels. Officials would only say that in their opinion this suite of bills 'provide an investment platform and strong regulatory basis for access to the coast'. This is hardly a satisfactory justification for the implementation of a rushed and sweeping reform package, and I am not the only one who thinks that—even the Labor senators in attendance at the inquiry were questioning the effectiveness and necessity of these bills. I am also disappointed that Hansard does not pick up pauses, because the long pause from department officials in response to my question, 'Are you confident that it'—that is, the number of Australian-flagged vessels—'will increase?' would be better described as a deafening silence. That question was finally answered with a repetition of the default position of the department that the package will provide a 'strong investment platform'. In the absence of department officials jumping up and down and telling me how wonderful this reform package is, I can only take it to mean that, no, they are not confident that this suite of bills will increase investment in Australian coastal shipping.
These bills will also increase red tape and the regulatory burden for both users of coastal shipping and industry participants. The bills abolish part VI of the Navigation Act 1912 and, in doing so, abolish the current permit and licensing system. Many companies have identified deficiencies in the temporary licence system established under the proposed act. The proposed scheme will require users seeking a temporary licence to carry out a minimum of five voyages per year, the details of which must be provided at the commencement of each year. According to the explanatory memorandum to the Coastal Trading Bill, a temporary licence will be issued for 'only those voyages where the required information is known, including expected loading and discharge ports and cargo type and volume'. This is a significant variation from our current situation under which two voyages a year are determined as being incidental and not requiring a licence. Of course, this determination was made by our current Prime Minister when she was 'minister for fair work'. How can the government possibly expect industry to provide such detailed information for an entire 12-month period in advance? The answer is that it cannot. Many submitters and witnesses to both the House and Senate inquiries said that it is simply impossible to forecast the movement of such cargoes over a 12-month period.
At the inquiry, Caltex argued that the minimum voyage requirement is not practical or reasonable and even went so far as to suggest that this could reduce transparency within the industry, because it would encourage shippers to include bogus voyages in their applications to meet the licensing requirements. But, as we all know, transparency is not of importance to this Labor government. Caltex and BP submitted to the inquiry that the changes to the licensing regime will also jeopardise Australia's fuel supply security by eliminating the flexibility to divert supply to meet emergency demand. It is incredible to think that, under these proposed bills, a fuel carrier could be forced to remain stationary for up to two days whilst bureaucrats decide whether it is permitted to change course to meet emergency supply of shortages to aviation fuel or petrol supplies.
Fuel companies have also highlighted that the proposed changes to licensing, which will see legs of journeys up for 'bid', will create safety risks in the transportation of flammable and dangerous goods. Sucrogen, a producer of sugar and molasses, also raised concerns in relation to the changes to the licensing regime because they could prevent it and other companies in Australia carrying their own cargo on their own ships. The transport of molasses, a product whose end use often results in consumption by humans, requires strict quality control and specific requirements. Sucrogen is currently able to ensure this quality control by using its own internationally flagged vessel, which it uses on the coastal trade, but may not be able to continue this practice under the proposed legislation. Not only does this defy all logic and common sense but also it could force such companies to cease coastal trading and instead export their goods to avoid this requirement. For example, instead of sending its molasses from Queensland to Victoria for processing, Sucrogen's evidence was that it might well find that, depending on how far around the coast it went, it would be marginal to continue the process of sending the molasses to other Australian areas for processing. It might become cheaper to send molasses overseas to be processed and to bring sugar directly from overseas into Australia—so there goes Australian industry and Australian downstream processing. The coastal shipping task would also be lowered, which is counterproductive to the overall purpose of these bills. The changes to the temporary licensing requirements can only be described as illogical and protectionist.
In addition to a significant increase in the regulatory burden, a number of submitters raised concerns about increased costs for coastal shipping and resultant job losses across manufacturing and industry. At a time when manufacturing and industry are struggling with a two-speed economy, a high Australian dollar and weak global demand and are facing the carbon tax, this Labor government wants to place further costs on the way manufacturing and industry transport their goods around Australia. The Australian Dry Bulk Shipping Users Group, who, as I have mentioned, carry 60 per cent of the current coastal shipping task, are so concerned by the impact these bills will have on their transport costs that they commissioned an independent report by Deloitte Access Economics, which confirmed that these bills would result in an increase to transport costs of at least 16 per cent. Shipping costs currently are around 30 per cent of the group's outgoings; now, just in time for the implementation of the carbon tax, this government is going to introduce legislation that will increase those costs further.
Already we have seen one global shipping operator announce its intentions to exit the coastal shipping market in Australia, with WWL announcing in May that it could not commit to engaging in coastal shipping after 1 July 2012. Like so many pieces of legislation, Labor is attempting to rush through the coastal shipping reform package without adequate consultation or consideration of the impact it will have on industry.
If we really want to work out how to revitalise coastal shipping in Australia and increase the number of Australian flagged vessels the logical path is to commission a Productivity Commission inquiry. Such an inquiry would investigate and address stakeholders' concerns and determine what impact these complex proposed regulatory changes would have on the Australian coastal shipping industry, the cost of freight and the cost to coastal shipping customers. It would also determine how best to proceed to ensure that we get an efficient and cost-competitive shipping industry based out of Australian which fosters increased activity. These bills should be rejected and the issue of the future of Australian flagged shipping should be sent to the Productivity Commission for further consideration.
I have listened with some interest to the debate on the shipping reform package. My colleagues on this side have gone forensically through the details of the bills and have explained in the clearest of terms why these bills in their present form are not in the best interests of either the shipping industry or Australia generally. I note that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry report into these bills, which was tabled this morning, contained a recommendation by the committee's coalition members that the bill not be passed, contrary to what Senator Ludlam said earlier. I am not quite sure where Senator Ludlam was, in view of his comment earlier that the bills went through the Senate committee inquiry without any concerns being expressed—unanimously, I think is what he said. Clearly, almost half of the Senate committee was unhappy with the bills as they stood.
My interest in these bills relates to two industries in my home state of Queensland and to the workers who rely on those industries for their living. Senator Cameron made an impassioned speech earlier, no doubt more for the gallery than for the chamber, in which he said that everything the coalition does is with the intent of forcing down workers' wages and reducing their employment opportunities. Clearly, Senator Cameron's definition of working people is 'working people who vote for the Labor Party'—one of the 21 per cent of Australians who do vote for the Labor Party these days—'and who live in Labor Party electorates'. Clearly, Senator Cameron's concern for working families and jobs for workers does not extend to the state of Queensland or, in particular, to the sugar industry or the industries around the Gladstone area of Queensland. Curiously, both of those electorates do not have Labor members and are never likely to because the workers in those areas understand that the Labor Party is no longer interested in their future and in their employment prospects. I might say that the same applies to nearly every federal seat in Queensland, where the Labor Party has very few seats these days apart from a couple in inner-city Brisbane. Clearly workers in rural and regional Queensland—and I suggest in rural and regional Australia more generally—are concerned at Labor's approach to their employment and their future.
Two of the industries affected by this legislation—because it will add to their costs—are the cement industry out of Gladstone and the sugar industry of the Queensland eastern seaboard. It might be appropriate just to mention that Australia is the third-largest exporter of sugar in the world. There are some 6,000 canegrowers in Australia, with more than 4,000 farms growing sugar along the eastern seaboard of the country. The sugar industry directly or indirectly supports 40,000 jobs in Australia and underpins the economic stability of many coastal communities. In fact, it is a part of the social fabric that has woven itself through the development of coastal towns up and down the coast of Queensland.
As Senator Bushby just said, and as the evidence to the committee demonstrated, there is every prospect that with additional costs on the industry it will be incumbent upon the industry perhaps with a view to its long-term economic future to send molasses overseas for processing rather than using Australian workers in Australian mills, which it currently supports by coastal shipping around the coast of Australia to where the molasses is further processed. If the costs are the straw that breaks the camel's back, so to speak, of the sugar industry then not only workers in the coastal shipping industry but also those workers in the few manufacturing areas that still operate in Australia will be disadvantaged. There is the prospect—and evidence of this was given at the inquiry—of sugar being imported from Asia into Australia. You can imagine what that might do to this wonderful, very significant and longstanding industry, which employs, I repeat, over 40,000 people indirectly and directly along the east coast of Australia. While Senator Cameron says, 'Oh, yes, we have to look after the seafarers'—and we all want to do that—he also has to expand his horizons to see what might happen to the jobs of other workers in Australia. They will be put in jeopardy by the continual incremental increase in the cost of doing business in Australia.
Evidence was given to the Senate inquiry, I understand, by the cement industry. I do not have the figures—I was not actually at the committee—but I have been approached by those involved in the cement industry. Rather than manufacturing cement in Gladstone and shipping it to Townsville, just 600 or 800 kilometres up the road, using coastal shipping, it will become more economic across the board to use cement made in South-East Asia and trans-ship it to Townsville. The cost of shipping will be cheaper doing that. So again you put in jeopardy all of those hundreds of workers in the Gladstone cement industry. I just use that as an example. The same would apply in other cement factories around Australia.
In the fertiliser industry there is a concern that this legislation will increase red tape and, because of that, increase the cost of shipping around the Australian coastline, thereby putting to the margin those industries which still exist in Australia. I see Senator Kim Carr in the chamber representing the government at the present time. He more than most understands how Australian manufacturing industries are in peril at this present time. They are in peril because every increase in the cost of manufacturing in Australia puts those industries in danger of shutting down. We have already seen so many Australian industries move overseas. Many have moved because of the lack of productivity in the Australian workforce over many years. But, more importantly, they are now moving in droves because they understand that with the introduction of a carbon tax their costs are going to skyrocket, particularly when compared to the costs of manufacturing industries in our competitor countries.
This government looks after small groups of people. I understand that to stay in government Ms Gillard needed the support of the Australian Greens and therefore she continues to pander to their every wish. But where is her concern for the manufacturing workers that Senator Cameron spoke about so passionately—allegedly—with her introduction of a carbon tax, which she, Senator Carr and Senator Ludlam know will destroy what is left of Australia's manufacturing industries? That is apparently fine because it panders to the Greens' shut-everything-down philosophy on the Australian economy and it allows Ms Gillard to swan around the world—where is the latest conference being held, Rio?—and say she is introducing the world's largest carbon tax. She will go there and say, 'We are better than everyone else. We have a bigger tax than all the rest of you, so aren't we good?'
But why isn't she concerned about the jobs of Australians, or the jobs that used to be Australian jobs, which are rapidly and increasingly going overseas?
This carbon tax, when it comes in in a few days time, will again add to the costs of Australian industry. Where is Ms Gillard's concern? Where is Senator Cameron's concern for the workers in the Bowen Basin and the proposed Galilee Basin coalmines? Are they concerned about that? They would answer by saying there are a lot of future investments on the drawing board in the mining industry and they are not worried about the carbon tax. I ask Senator Cameron, who brought up that ridiculous argument, to realise that mining executives can read opinion polls too, and any interest still being shown in investment in Australia by the mining industry is from those companies who are looking at the opinion polls. You do not have to be Einstein these days to read an opinion poll. They know there will be a change of government and the new government will as its first obligation on day one start the process of abolishing the carbon tax. Day two will be to remove the investment-negative minerals resource rent tax. The interest that there is in Australia's mining industry at the present time is from those international mining executives who can read and understand an opinion poll.
But, should the opinion polls be wrong and should this government continue after the next election, the jobs of so many miners in such a vast part of northern and remote Australia in particular will be put at real risk. That is why I am concerned about these bills before the parliament at the present time. The costs may not be a lot. I saw figures of costs going up 16 per cent. That was someone's estimate. It may not be correct. It may be more than that; it may be less than that. But any increase in the cost of doing business in Australia puts in great jeopardy those industries which have in the past made Australia so great and which have provided employment prospects for so many Australians.
My concern is for those industries that have in the past made Queensland so great—industries like the sugar industry, the mining industry and more recent industries like the cement industry out of Gladstone that currently contribute significantly not only to the economy of Central Queensland but to the economy of Australia as a whole. If these bills add to their costs and make them even more marginal, then their future is bleak and the future of the jobs of those workers is put in jeopardy.
This is why the second reading amendment moved by Senator Joyce is one that should be seriously considered. I know Senator Ludlam dismissed that and said, 'Don't not rely on our vote for that—it's not going to happen.' Perhaps he was as well informed on that as he was on the committee report when he said it was a unanimously supported report. I would ask Senator Ludlam to consider: what is the harm in asking the Productivity Commission to have a look at it? Perhaps what I have said about the sugar industry and the cement industry will not come to pass. Perhaps the calculations done for those industries are not precise. Perhaps in some areas they have worked on the basis of the wrong parameters. But certainly there was a wealth of evidence before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that suggested there would be an increase in costs from the red tape and from the uncertainty that will follow the adoption of this bill. If there is anything that puts the sugar industry, the cement industry, the mining industry or other industries at risk, then it should be carefully considered. That is why Senator Joyce's amendment for the referral of this matter to the Productivity Commission makes a lot of sense. What harm can it do?
These bills, as other speakers have said, were a long time coming. They were supposed to be 'reform'. I use that word in inverted commas because, as Senator Bushby well said, after the departmental officials were asked about the extent of the reform or the rapidity of the reform there was an embarrassing silence. So these bills are not going to 'reform' the industry overnight. Why not send the bills to the Productivity Commission? These are people who are well skilled, honest, independent and who do not stand to gain or lose one way or the other. They are people whose ability and skill is in looking at this type of legislation.
I do give the government credit for these bills in that I think they were trying to do something positive. I think they were trying to improve the situation across the board. But again, as I said in relation to Senator Cameron's contribution, it is no good just looking after one small part of the workforce if in doing that you are going to put in jeopardy the jobs, the employment and the future prospects of an even greater number of workers and industries whose livelihoods depend on these industries keeping going. These industries, as we have seen so much in recent times, will not be able to continue to compete against those of our neighbours. The carbon tax—and I do not think any sane person can disagree with this—will send more and more Australian jobs offshore. Our manufacturing industries, as Senator Kim Carr knows better than anyone else, have been faltering for decades now. The increased cost of power with the new carbon tax—the increased cost of doing absolutely anything—will exacerbate the move for Australia's manufacturing industries overseas.
I just plead with senators not to let this bill and the Australian coastal shipping trade in all of its forms add to those cost pressures which will send Australian jobs offshore. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the Senate or indeed the parliament to ask the Productivity Commission to have a look at this legislation, to see whether this bill as it stands would 'reform' Australia's shipping industry or whether it perhaps would not do such reforming but would destroy other Australian industries and jobs. That is why I urge the Senate to oppose the bill as it presently stands and to support Senator Joyce's second reading amendment to let the Productivity Commission have a good look at this and give us some really professional, independent advice on the right way to go.
I take this opportunity to thank senators for their comments and their contributions to this debate on the five bills that are before the chamber, comprising the government's Stronger Shipping for a Stronger Economy legislative package. These bills represent the most significant reform of the Australian shipping industry in nearly 100 years. These reforms are designed to address the 40 per cent decline in the Australian fleet over the last decade by providing Australian companies with an internationally competitive fiscal and regulatory regime to encourage investment in the Australian shipping industry. In short, this is a package of measures designed for the modernisation of the Australian industry by concentrating on the economic fundamentals of the industry and ensuring that we concentrate on productivity, innovation and the development of high-skill, high-wage jobs for Australians in the industry.
It stands in sharp contrast to the position taken by those opposite, which is to take the low road, to race to the bottom, to see the whole issue of competitiveness in terms of the reduction of wages and conditions for working people. This measure provides for Australian vessels paying Australian wages and conditions. It provides for jobs for Australians to be given preference. However, these new licensing arrangements do not close the coast to foreign ships. The government recognises the legitimate role of foreign-registered vessels in our domestic shipping industry and they will continue to have access to the coast, subject to Australian vessels being given the opportunity to determine whether they are available to undertake the trade.
The bills provide for open and transparent decision-making processes. They provide for flexibility in terms of variations in existing licences. Based on a collaborative approach with industry, the bills provide opportunities both for major companies and for workers to enjoy the benefits of ensuring that Australian industry is competitive while based on proper wages and conditions.
There is of course a matter of national interest here. Ninety per cent of Australian exports by volume are carried by sea. We are the fourth largest sea transport mission in the world. Incredibly, however, Australia has only four vessels participating solely in the international trade. So now is the time to take action to increase Australian participation in the international trade, and that is what this package of measures does.
Time is short, and I think there has already been very lengthy discussion on these bills. I will not delay the Senate other than to say that we would like to thank the Economics Legislation Committee for its consideration of these measures. We would like to acknowledge the fact that the committee has made recommendations that have led to a compact between employers and unions being finalised last month. These are bold reforms. They are consistent with the committee's recommendations, and the government is very proud of these achievements to ensure the protection of Australia's vital interests.
As to the second reading amendment being proposed by Senator Joyce, the government does not support such a measure. It is the same amendment as that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. It is quite a disingenuous approach. It is not a question of having yet another inquiry; it is a device to delay, at a time when the industry needs certainty and needs to be able to move forward with confidence. This amendment is being proposed by the conservative forces in this parliament, continuing the status quo of an unlevel playing field for Australians and for Australian shipping vessels. We want to ensure that the industry has the confidence to proceed, that new investment is attracted and that we are able to proceed on the basis of innovative processes to ensure that high-skill, high-wage jobs are provided. If Senator Joyce had been confident of the Productivity Commission's bona fides, perhaps he would not have advised us to use its reports in the manner in which he has in recent times. Perhaps they are a bit rough for that purpose as well! His is clearly a view that we can hardly take as being a sincere and genuine approach, given that he suggested these reports be used as toilet paper.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Joyce be agreed to.
The question now is that the bills be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
The question is that the bills stand as printed.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 7235 together:
(1) Clause 28, page 23 (line 10), after “specify”, insert “, to the extent known,”.
(2) Clause 28, page 23 (line 11), omit “, which must be 5 or more,”.
(3) Clause 28, page 23 (line 17), omit “(if known)”.
(4) Clause 28, page 23 (line 18), omit “(if known)”.
(5) Clause 51, page 35 (line 1), after “specify”, insert “, to the extent known,”.
(6) Clause 51, page 35 (line 2), omit “, which must be 5 or more,”.
(7) Clause 51, page 35 (line 8), omit “(if known)”.
Obviously, what we wish to do with these amendments to the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012 is make sure that we are more expedient in how the licensing provisions are dealt with. The current schedule 3 licensing arrangements, we feel, are cumbersome and are going to create a range of problems and impediments that have been spelt out. Some of those impediments can be seen in areas, for instance, where people have to have five voyages in 12 months. We are going to have people who basically say, 'I only need two; I need to get to five, so I'm going to have to try and work out how to get around that,' so we will have the contriving of ways to get up to a certain limit. The amendments omit the five-voyage minimum requirement. The amendment is to the fact that an application for a temporary licence must include at least five voyages in a 12-month period. One of the exposure drafts of the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012 set the minimum number of voyages at 10 in a 12-month period. As noted in the explanatory memorandum:
There was broad consensus from industry that many operators could not provide sufficient detail for ten voyages and that five voyages was more practical.
However, the same objections from industry that applied to the 10-voyage minimum threshold apply to the five-voyage threshold. Whist it is true that most industry participants that would be applying for a temporary licence to engage in five or more voyages per year is not the case for everyone, the bill in its present form would see that the smaller operators would be unable to comply with the new regulatory arrangements. There is almost universal agreement in the industry that this requirement should be removed. As Caltex notes in its submission to the House committee inquiry:
Implementing a minimum voyage requirement on TL—
that is, a temporary licence—
applications is not practical or reasonable. The requirement places unnecessary restrictions on shippers who undertake less than five voyages in a 12 month period and disadvantages these stakeholders whose trade is not likely to encourage investment on the coast due to their variable needs and low demand.
The prospect of temporary licence holders making up fictitious or spurious voyages to meet the five-voyage minimum is discussed in many of the submissions to the House and Senate inquiries into the legislation. The regulatory system is obviously deficient and clearly does not meet its objectives if, in order to comply, applicants are forced to make up fictitious voyages—which is what I mentioned at the start. Not only would this undermine the integrity of the system; it would waste industry and department time and resources in processing applications for voyages that will never occur.
Additionally, general licence holders who are given the option of objecting to a particular voyage listed in a temporary licence, if they are believed to be unable to take the cargo or passengers, may needlessly spend time objecting to voyages that a temporary licence holder has no intention of undertaking but is just using to make up the numbers and reach their five-voyage limit. Shipping Australia comments on the five-voyage limit in its submission, stating:
… the minimum of five voyages, which in our view, discriminates against the smaller coastal shipper who may, for example, have two or three voyages per year …
The department states in its supplementary submission to the House committee inquiry, in response to the industry's concerns about the five-voyage limit, that the vast majority of shippers undertake in excess of five voyages per year and so would qualify under the new temporary licence. However, they acknowledge:
For the small number of operators requiring fewer than five voyages, the new arrangements may require some reconsideration of their operating arrangements.
These small operators will no longer be able to operate in the Australian coastal trade without significantly changing their operations. Additionally, the five-voyage minimum will stifle the ability of start-up routes by new entrants into the market who are not on the Australian register. You will not be able to test a market and see whether there is a demand for a particular route if you are unable to commit to five voyages in a 12-month period. One such example of this is raised by Sucrogen in their submission to the House committee inquiry. They explain in their submission:
The bioethanol business was recently re-structured to provide only fuel grade ethanol into the Queensland market with industrial markets served by product imported to the Port of Melbourne.
Under recently changed market conditions, Sucrogen BioEthanol intends to restart closer to the transfers of ethanol from North Queensland to Melbourne rather than important it from overseas. One would suggest that this would probably be very good for the ethanol industry of North Queensland—and I am glad to see Senator Bernardi and Senator Cash are here to listen to this, because I know they have an intense interest in the good people of North Queensland; it is a shame that at the moment they are not sitting on our side of the chamber!
We will be when it comes to a vote, Senator!
I will take opposition wherever I can find it! However, Sucrogen believe this is made more difficult because of the bill. They say:
It might be that from time to time depending on the market situation the business needs to only move one cargo. It may be that it needs to move four and this cannot be predicted over a 12 month period.
That applies to the businesses beholden to this bill. This shows the impediments that happen when we have to, in some way, predict the next 12-month period. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate this morning, it is very hard to predict with market based things precisely what product you are going to be moving and when.
In summary, what we are trying to do with these amendments is remove some of the cumbersome items that are so obvious in this legislation. We have got to try and get the wheels of commerce turning in some form that deals with the issues that are before us in this nation. It is absurd to think that this is happening at a time when Europe is going through the obvious dilemmas that we see on the television every hour of every day, in every news brief. When we see the issues that have been brought up lately in Queensland—with its debt about to go past $1 billion, thanks to the Labor government and the parlous financial state it left its Treasury in; when places such as South Australia are losing their credit rating; when we find the debt of New South Wales going through the roof; and when we find that our own nation’s debt is at $231 billion and heading north, we have to try and do everything we can to make sure that we can export product at a rate which makes it competitive on the global market so that we can basically pay our way in the future. We always seem to be coming up with impediments in this chamber. In the next couple of weeks, we will have the lunacy of the carbon tax coming in. Everyone is going to have to pick up the tab for that. Why? Who knows why. It is because we do not like having people employed in Australia, apparently. This legislation is yet another addendum to that. It is another mechanism that basically makes it harder for our industry to compete. On the back of this, we have to try and do something to streamline this legislation in such a way that it keeps Australia in the ballpark, that keeps Australia competitive. This amendment is part of a process of trying to deal with the legislation and in some form to streamline it.
These are the same amendments that were proposed in the House by the Leader of the Opposition. We did not support them during that debate and we do not support them now. I repeat: the industry wants certainty and these amendments would undermine that. They create ambiguity. Senator Joyce's specific concern is about temporary licences being valid for 12 months. He suggests that applicants will not know in advance the number of voyages they require for an entire 12-month period. The temporary licence is valid—he is right—for 12 months. The bill provides that the applicant only applies for those voyages which they know the details of. For example, if a company's planning horizon is for three months, they can submit an application with the detail of those voyages for this period, with a minimum of five voyages of course. The applicant then applies for the next package of voyages when they are known. This issue was raised during the exposure draft consultation, and the government amended the bill to provide this flexibility.
Where the general licence holder does not have sufficient knowledge to know whether to nominate to undertake voyages, as is being proposed by the opposition, these amendments would serve, if accepted by this chamber, to maintain the current situation whereby there is a lack of transparency in the coastal trading arrangements. This would continue the status quo, as I said in my previous contribution, of an unlevel playing field for Australian vessels. Australian goods carried by ships with an Australian flag and crewed by Australian workers on the Australian coast is what we are seeking to achieve, and we would ask the opposition to reconsider their position. We certainly call on the chamber to reject these amendments.
It is always interesting to hear the Labor government talk about a level playing field. I suppose that is why we are about to get ourselves a $23-a-tonne carbon tax when the vast majority of the world does not have one at all. That is an awfully level playing field! I can understand why they talk about a level playing field when even those who are trading in carbon as a product are basically doing their dough—the carbon price is about six or seven bucks. These people who talk about a level playing field like to talk about it, but they are not too good at delivering it. They do not even consider delivering it to our own people. The reality is that we are talking about products where many of them, especially agricultural products, do not deal on a level playing field. We are having to deal, for instance, with grain markets that are some of the most corrupt markets in the world. The National Party believes in the orderly marketing of grain because of the discrepancies that are abundant there.
However, if you believe in a level playing field then you have to also believe that other people are just going to take advantage of our cost structure when it is in excess of theirs. They will just buy products from somewhere else. We are basically putting ourselves out of our own markets. Why this is so important is that there is no railway line to Indonesia and there is no bridge to China—there is coastal shipping. If we want to put ourselves out of a market or create a distinct disadvantage between us and the markets we need to get to, we will never find a better way than by creating a disadvantage in our coastal shipping areas.
Far from reconsidering our position, I would like the government to answer some of the issues. The government's justification for this package was uncompetitive labour laws on the international stage. That was part of the minister's justification. So I ask the minister: what are the trade exposed industries that the government is considering exempting from Australian labour laws and what impact have Australian labour laws had on the shipping sector?
There is nothing further to add to this question. Senator Joyce can go on at length about any other extraneous issue. There is a fundamental question here: do you support this bill or not?
You get the distinct sense that the minister did not actually listen to the question, don't you? But that is not surprising. To help the minister out, let us ask him the question again—and this time, Minister, face the front. Given that part of the government's justification for this package was uncompetitive labour laws on an international stage—that was part of your justification, Minister; over here, eyes front—what other trade exposed industries is the government considering exempting from the Australian labour laws and what impact have Australian labour laws had on the shipping sector?
Senator Joyce, it is pretty clear that this government strongly supports Australian wages and conditions. You may not agree with that approach, and I presume that is the basis on which you are seeking to gut this bill, but that is not going to be the position this government adopts. We are allowing international shipping companies to participate in the trade but we are saying that preference has to be given to Australian ships and Australian crews. We see no reason to move away from that proposition.
The sections of my question were, first, what other trade exposed industries the government is considering exempting from Australian labour laws—and it appears there was no answer to that—and, next, what impact Australian labour laws have had on the shipping sector. There was no answer to that either. Maybe if the minister has a bit more time he might be able to find an answer. While he is considering that, he might consider another issue. You say you want to protect Australian labour and their jobs on the factory floor or in the agricultural sector or the mining sector, but that philosophy you are laying down here about protecting Australian jobs seems completely incongruous with the philosophy behind your introduction, in two weeks time, of a $23-a-tonne tax on Australians competing in these markets, which is putting Australian workers at a complete and utter disadvantage. Minister, are you saying that there are no other trade exposed industries the government is considering exempting from Australian labour laws?
The answer is no.
And what is your answer to what impact Australian labour laws have had on the shipping sector?
There is no departure from current arrangements in regard to that. We are encouraging, however, an opportunity for further investment by Australian companies to employ Australian crews on Australian conditions.
Under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012, an application for a temporary licence requires detailed information for each voyage. Do you believe that, as your bill is currently structured, there is scope for this to be manipulated—with people contriving voyages or being put in a position where they have to make the number five? What is so impressive about the number five that is not impressive about the number six, the number four, the number seven or the number three? How did you come to the number five?
Proposed section 61 requires voyage notification and proposed section 62 requires giving a report after every voyage. You will be aware, Senator, that this is not a new requirement. The voyage notification process is to meet customs requirements and merely codifies an activity that currently occurs automatically when an SVP is applied for. The information will be provided directly to Customs and applicants for temporary licences only need to identify voyages, not ships, to enable Customs to undertake its legislative and operational responsibility. Customs also needs to be advised of movements of all non-imported vessels.
On page 23 of the explanatory memorandum to the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012, it says that only voyages where the required information is known—including expected loading dates, loading, discharge ports and cargo types and volumes—will be counted. Is that not completely inconsistent with the answer you just gave?
These bills are about transparency. They are about ensuring there is a codification of the detailed requirements currently in ministerial guidelines. I am advised that these are matters such as publishing requirements, voyage notification—a whole range of other issues. The current practice had not previously been articulated in legislation. So this bill actually makes things clearer and more transparent. The decision to incorporate these measures into legislation was in response to longstanding industry concerns that the reliance on ministerial guidelines for decision making has resulted in a lack of transparency and a lack of certainty for industry and has contributed to the decline of the industry. These were key findings of various parliamentary committees, including House of Representatives committees, as far back as 2008.
Once more that is waffle, not an answer. How is it that, in your own words, someone will determine for the next 12-month period what their expected loading dates will be, what their loading and discharge port will be and what their cargo type will be? Where will this information come from for the next 12 months? Is it through divine inspiration in the quieter moments of the darkest night that this information will come to them? Since we have such perfect knowledge of the next 12 months, do we also have perfect knowledge of the next 12 years? Can we plan that far out knowing the uncertainties, given the fact that in the current economic climate it is a surprise from week to week where we are? Can you explain to me how people are going to go about assessing their expected loading dates, loading and discharge ports, cargo type and volumes?
You made some indication before that you thought people were not listening to you. I am surprised that you were not able to pay attention to the previous answer I gave you. In regard to the temporary licences: while they are valid for 12 months, the bill provides that the applicant need only apply for those voyages that they know the details of. For example, if a company's planning horizon is three months, they can submit an application with the detail of these voyages for this period. Of course, there must be a minimum of five voyages. Senator, you are making presumptions about people that run these companies and you talk as if they do not know their business. You are talking as if they have no idea about what is actually going on within the trade. These are applications that allow for people to make licensing arrangements for voyages when they are known. I would suggest that we get on with the bill rather than trying to waste the Senate's time.
In your answer you said that they can have a three-month planning horizon. Even with that, since there are four lots of three months in a year, if they can find two voyages, will that suffice? Are we able to take that as the equivalent of five voyages over the year if they do two voyages over three months?
I have indicated now three times: a minimum of five voyages.
What is the purpose of the three-month analysis if they still need five voyages?
If the company has a planning horizon which is only over three months, they can submit an application with the details of those voyages for that period of time. It does not require them to have full knowledge of what their details will be over a 12-month period.
So they submit their application for the next three months. Correct me if I am wrong: there are four lots of three months in a year, so if in that three months they say, 'There are two voyages in the coming three months,' then four twos are eight, which is greater than five. Will that suffice or do they have to show five voyages in that three-month period?
Senator, you are making a presumption about the question that there is no flexibility in these arrangements. The company will make its licensing arrangements based on its belief that there will be five voyages, and it is able to amend those applications in light of experience.
Good; so this will clarify it. In that case, if the company supplies two voyages in three months and they say, 'We expect that to be how it will progress through the year,' you will accept that as covering the criteria for five voyages for the year?
I am not certain if I have been clear enough for you. The advice that I have been given—this is the fourth occasion on which I have given it to the Senate—is that there is a requirement for applications to be for five voyages.
He is right, Madam Temporary Chair: he has not been clear at all. So the purpose of the analysis of the three-month term in the assessment of a 12-month period is what? If we cannot basically pro rata the three-month period over the 12 months, what is the purpose of the assessment over the three-month period?
Senator, the process as I have been advised is that a company will make application for five voyages and can vary those in the light of their experience over a three-month period.
So you are basically saying that, to be honest, you are completely and utterly confused about what the three-month period is about. Nonetheless, what led you to the five-voyage assessment as opposed to four or six? What was so special about five?
Industry consultation was the basis of that calculation.
Can you please refer me to the section in your industry consultation which refers to five voyages?
As a result of conversations with industry, there was feedback from industry, and I am advised that that was the advice that came from industry. It was not as if the government went there and said, 'You will have five voyages.' This is what the industry, in conversations with government, indicated they wanted.
Industry—which section? Can you quote a body? Is there any person on the record that you can give reference to that said, 'Five voyages is what we want'?
The Australian Shipowners Association.
Whereabouts?
Madam Temporary Chair, this is abuse of the committee system of this chamber. There has been a full legislative process here involving detailed Senate committee consideration of these matters. These questions, I presume, have been canvassed through that process. I frankly cannot offer much more advice.
Minister, during the committee stage, a senator has a right to ask questions and you can choose the way you respond.
It is not an abuse of the process for me, on behalf of the Australian people, to ask questions of the minister and to have some expectation that we will get an attempt at an answer without a groan or a moan of frustration. If you do not know where that reference is then just say, 'I am unaware of where that reference is; I will take it on notice and get back to you.' That is a much more simple and polite way to go about it rather than to yack-ai on. The rationale for the 12-month period as explained by the department is as follows:
Extension to a 12 month period—
for a temporary licence as opposed to a continuing voyage permit, which lasts for three months—
will provide holders of these licences with greater certainty regarding their shipping arrangements.
How does this take into account the commercial reality in many parts of the shipping industry, where a 12-month schedule is not possible to predict?
This is the advice that industry has given government. Presumably industry has its own view about commercial realities, and that is the basis on which we have acted.
You refer to the detailed extrapolation of this, as evident in the Senate inquiry. Can you please now tell us where industry says that this is the case and give us some direction as to where you got that information from?
The advice I am given is that it was an original arrangement put forward in a discussion paper for two years at a roundtable with industry and that, as a result of those discussions with industry at that roundtable, it was changed to 12 months, and the five-voyage licensing arrangements arose from that process.
I have just been talking to my friend, guide and philosopher, Jess Findlay, who has managed to supply me with the document I have here. It seems to run contrary to what the minister has just told us. It is the Australian Shipowners Association submission. I refer the minister to items 5.9 to 5.11 under 'Minimum number of voyages'. Item 5.10 is interesting. It says:
… Applicants who genuinely require fewer voyages than the minimum set will be forced to provide spurious information to make up the set number required. This is not in the interests of the applicant, GL holders who may wish to nominate or the Department—who will be processing the application. This is an example of red tape which must be avoided.
This is their recommendation:
… It is recommended that a sensible solution be found to deal with situations where fewer than 5 voyages are required …
Minister, why did you just tell me that it was the Australian Shipowners Association's submission which suggested five? You have put it on the record of the Hansard. Do you now wish to correct the record or would you like me to send Ms Findlay over to work for you?
The reason I gave you that advice is that was the advice that I got from the officials. I do not wish to change my advice to the chamber.
So you are standing by what you previously said even though right here the submission in front of me says something entirely different, making you look rather foolish?
I am advised that I do need to correct the record and that the submission from the association was that but that a number of their members had indicated to government, through the roundtable, that they preferred the approach that was adopted.
Thank you, Minister, and it is adult to correct the record and I appreciate that. Well done. Which members of the association had a view different from that in the Australian Shipowners Association submission?
Senator Kim Carr interjecting—
I want to go to another thing. Shipping Australia says in its submission to the House committee's inquiry:
It is impossible to forecast the movement of such cargoes over a twelve month period in terms of expected loading dates, kinds and volume of cargo, type of vessel and the ports of loading and unloading of the cargo.
This will be a particular problem for break-bulk and bulk industries. How do you see them dealing with the issues of assessment of the cargoes they have in the bulk industries? What is the process that the department has gone through for assessment, which is going to be an obvious dilemma for bulk industries? In the collection of this data, did we do any analysis of what the possible upstream effects would be for those supplying those bulk commodities? Have we done an assessment as to the sensitivities in the coal industry and the grain industry and how this will affect them? Was this decision made in light of what the effects on the industries involved would be or was it made with the exclusion of what the effects on the industries involved would be?
I am advised that there is no difference between the treatment of bulk cargoes and that of other cargoes—five voyages a year is the requirement—and that the bulk of the industry or shippers actually have more than five voyages a year. We are actually talking about a very small number of people on the edge of these arrangements.
Minister, obviously this has a cost effect on the transportation of goods. In light of this legislation was any study done into what the effect will be on the competitiveness of the industry? Transport is a major component of the cost of some of these items. Have we done any assessment of what the effects will be and what the sensitivities will be with this legislation vis-a-vis competition, for instance, in coal as to Indonesia? As you know, the Indonesians are coming into our coal markets. I think they are now a bigger exporter of coal than we are. So have we done any assessment of that and of grains? Have we done any assessment of whether this affects our competitiveness in the grain market and whether the costs will then be taken back to growers, especially those in the grain market? These people do not have the capacity to absorb costs. That is especially so given that regionally based monopolies are now predominantly involved in the exporting of grain. So will they just therefore put the costs back onto the grower? By reason of this legislation will there be a reduction in return to wheat growers and barley growers and to the coal industry?
There are very generous taxation concessions built into this legislation which will, in fact, reduce costs and provide for a more efficient service by the shipping companies.
Minister, I want to quote to you something that Caltex said:
Given the variable nature of our operations it is not possible for Caltex to nominate its coastal trade for the coming 12 months because this is not known nor planned more than three months in advance. This has been the normal operating practice of Caltex, which will be adversely impacted by the requirements of the TL—
temporary licence—
regime.
Shell backed this assertion. It said:
Overall the Temporary Licence system appears more complicated and burdensome to both the oil industry and the Department than the existing Permit system, and in our opinion, will fail to deliver any of the objectives of the Act in respect to the oil tanker segment of the Australian shipping industry.
Seeing that we currently have immense pressures that are currently being put on the refining industry and seeing that we are talking about the most effective large-scale movement of their product between major capitals—given that we are probably going back to one or two refining capacities on the eastern coast so this is about bulk movement and refining capacity—do you see that the pressures from this could be part and parcel of a cost position that means ultimately we start to put out of business our own refining capacity, to be replaced with the importation of refined fuel, and as such more Australian workers will lose their jobs?
Senator, I think Caltex's statement may well have appeared prior to the bill being amended, prior to the exposure draft consultations. The government amended the bill to provide the flexibility for the three-month period.
Minister, in your analysis of the Australian Shipowners Association submission—because you keep quoting it as the relevant source of consultation in not agreeing to these amendments—do you believe that you have given an accurate assessment of what the Australian Shipowners Association submission says and what they wish in trying to convert this bill into something that is more palatable, or are you relying predominantly on what you perceive to be sections, or what some people at some roundtable have said? Do you wish to stand by your views that the Australian Shipowners Association back your position to reject these amendments, or are you saying that it is sections of the Australian Shipowners Association that may be onside with your amendments?
Senator, I think you have misrepresented what I actually said. I was asked about a specific matter. I incorrectly, on advice, provided that information to the Senate. I have corrected the record in that regard and indicated to you the process by which the government sought to ensure that there was appropriate industry consultation.
On the general issue of consultation, this is a package of measures which has had a long and thorough process of consultation and review through this parliament, starting back in 2007. There was, of course, a House of Representatives committee. There was bipartisan support through a bipartisan report in October 2008 recommending a policy framework to revitalise the shipping industry. In 2009, the government convened the Shipping Policy Advisory Group, comprising shippers, industry and unions, to advise on the best means to implement those recommendations. In 2010, there were election commitments for a discussion paper, which was released and there were public comments on the proposed reforms. In 2011, the government established three industry reference groups to work through the details of these reforms. These included two roundtables which were attended by Minister Albanese. Again, these groups comprised a cross-section of the industry. In 2011 and early 2012, exposure drafts of the bill were released for public comment and a further roundtable was held in February to enable industry to work through the details with officials. That is hardly what I would say would reflect a lack of consultation with the industry.
These amendments—and the proposal which we have already seen defeated in this chamber for further delays in the introduction of these measures—in my view, are not a genuine reflection on these questions but in fact are a means by which to maintain the existing uneven arrangements, unfair arrangements, within the industry.
The government's view is that these issues are urgent. Despite the amazing amounts of consultation that have been engaged in, there is always going to be someone who will say, 'Give us more time to delay these measures.' That is not the position the government holds. We are seeking to have these measures introduced as quickly as possible.
There is always a vast difference between consultation and dictation. What people believe is that, when you enter into consultation, their views, which they have given, will be incorporated in the outcome that you propose in some way, shape or form. But, when there is a discussion but it is a waste of time because you end up in the position that the government wants rather than the position that industry wants, that is not consultation. That is a process that is rhetorical but it is not consultation. Consultation somehow works on the premise that the other person gets heard and not only heard—and I have no doubt you did hear them—but actually responded to in such a way that the outcome is seen in the legislation provided.
Minister, in a submission to the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications inquiry, Shipping Australia said, of the five-voyage minimum limit to the variation process:
This simply does not make sense. If an applicant does expect to have five voyages over the twelve month period—
of a temporary licence—
but then finds he has seven voyages he can’t seek a variation to the temporary licence?
Is that correct?
The advice I am given is that, in groups of five, variations can be made.
Can you just expand on 'in groups of five, variations can be made'? Can you expand on exactly what you mean by that so that I do not misquote you?
Applications are in groups of five voyages.
Minister, I will try and assist you. Are we saying that, if it is not five, they can then apply for 10, but if it is not five they cannot apply for seven?
There is a minimum of five per voyage application process but there is no maximum number.
If, therefore, they presume that they need three and find out later that they need seven, can you please spell out the process of how they get themselves a temporary licence in that 12-month period?
My advice is that applications are made in blocks, with a minimum of five. If further applications are required, that can be done. There is flexibility within the system.
I might just drill down into that. Let me restate the question that I am asking. A person says, 'I need three voyages'—they cannot get a temporary licence—but later on says, 'Hang on, I need seven'. Let us make this easy for everybody; let us say it is over the July to June period. In July they say, 'We need three'. They get to September and a big wheat crop is coming in, and they say, 'Hang on, we had better book a couple more boats. We'll need seven.' Can they then go back and get a temporary licence? Or do you say, 'Sorry, mate, you only applied for three, so you are not going to get seven' and you do not get a temporary licence—is that the deal?
I am advised that, in 2010-11, 97 per cent of permits were issued to operators who used five or more permits. For a small number of operators requiring fewer than five voyages, the new arrangements will require reconsideration of their operational requirements. That is the basis on which this legislation has been put together following extensive consultation with industry.
As I stated before, we have talked about the extensive consultation and we have already quoted back the Australian Shipowners submission. We have already got a correction from the minister on an issue, because the proposal was not a clear reflection of the consultation with or the recommendation of the association he quoted. What we are trying to do now is delve into the issue—just to show you how Kafkaesque and ridiculous this is—of an organisation which honestly says they only need three voyages. They are not trying to be spurious or ridiculous; they tell the truth by saying they only need three and so they cannot get a temporary licence. Then a massive wheat crop comes in and they say, 'We have a chance to make some money here. We have a chance to go from that three per cent of shipping into a big shipper.' No-one ever becomes a big shipper without starting as a small shipper. We have to remember that. They say three per cent, but it is a wonder that three per cent exists, when you have something as cumbersome as this. This is probably why there is only three per cent, because you are not allowing people the capacity to grow. You are saying, 'You're a five or you're zero'.
Let us put this on the record. They start in July and they say they only need three. They find out later on they need seven, and if they had put that information in at the start they would have got themselves a temporary licence. But they are stuck in September without a temporary licence. Can they go back and say, 'Look, we said three. We now realise that it is seven. Therefore we need a temporary licence.' Can they get that temporary licence or is it no go and they have to wait for the next period? And when is that next period?
The answer is yes.
The answer is yes, they can then get themselves a temporary licence—is that right?
Yes
Can you please explain the process of how they get it?
My advice is that there is no date on which the applications are made. Companies can make applications throughout the year to meet their operational requirements. The bill aims to encourage greater planning in the industry and to provide greater visibility of the trades around the coast. By setting a minimum number of voyages, both the shippers and operators can enter into commercial negotiations based on longer-term business arrangements, which of course provides greater certainty for both parties. The policy intent of these measures, after consultation with the industry, is to provide a better operating basis for the industry as a whole. Senator, you are obviously concerned about very small numbers of people in, given all the advice that has been put to me, very unusual circumstances. I suggest that it might pay you to look at the 97 per cent of permits that are being issued to operators who use five or more permits.
Thank you. I think we are getting somewhere now. The minister has now answered 'Yes'. We all heard that. It is in Hansard; we can all read it. It changes things for that coastal shipping operator who starts their 12-month period only needing three, but gets to a point where they say, 'Hang on, that's changed. We need seven.' I asked the question—I am sure the people in the gallery will remember this—does that mean that they can go back and get a temporary licence in September to deal with the seven? The answer came back, 'Yes, they can'. We are on the record now. That is now the position of the government. The minister must realise that. He has answered the question and the answer is yes. That changes things a bit, doesn't it? This was the position: if, for example, an applicant wanted to add two new voyages to their temporary licence in a 12-month period, they were unable to do so. If no other vessel was available, the goods would have to travel by road or rail or not at all. Now the case has changed. So, we have been very successful in the chamber today, because we have now changed a position of government. Thank you, Minister, for that. I appreciate that. It is a big win. It was not that hard, was it, Ms Findlay? We got there. If that is the government's position, I suppose we should go to a vote.
I have indicated, Senator, on numerous occasions that there is a minimum requirement of five, and companies can seek additional licences. As to beyond five, they are not required to have only five but I have made it very clear that the policy position is to encourage longer-term planning, and the minimum requirement can use a shipping agent to reduce the number of licences. Of course, Senator Joyce's proposal would take us back to a system which undermines the efficiency of the industry. This is about trying to reduce the process of single voyages and of single shippers trying to game the system. Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:44): It is quite obvious that this is mass confusion. This is how the government works. In the last 10 minutes we have had three different government positions.These are the same people running your debt, by the way. This is the same group that is apparently going to cool the planet. It is a very interesting day when, in 10 minutes, I can have three different positions.
You all heard it. We had a position at the start where you could not go beyond five—and then the minister answered that you could. Now we are back to the confusing position of not knowing whether you can or you cannot. We now have two completely different positions. We have the position, 'We'll just file it under the answer yes'. And we have the palaver we heard about three minutes ago. So I do not know the position. Who would know? Who out there in radioland would know what the government's position is? This is a quite simple question. There was nothing Socratic about what I asked. Let us have another crack at it. Let us refer to your answer 'yes'. Is that answer now really supposed to have been no?
I have nothing further to add, Senator. You are going around in circles. You are obviously seeking to filibuster this issue. I presume your intention is not to get a vote on this matter before question time. I am afraid I cannot add anything more to what I have answered. I answered the word 'yes' to a specific question in relation to specific measures on the advice of the officials. I have no reason to change that.
If you do not change it then the position stands. If you have three voyages planned and you find out through circumstances that come before you that you need seven—I asked the question, 'Could you change it?' and you answered yes. That is the position you have. You have now confirmed that you are not changing that position, so that is the position of the government. That is where we are. That is why we have a committee stage. It is now clearly on the record that this is the position. You have reaffirmed it. We needed five. Then we did not need five because we had three and needed seven. You can apply for it. The answer was yes.
Then you went back to a generic statement about five. Now you have gone back and confirmed your agreement to the statement 'yes'. Now we have four positions in 15 minutes. This is why you have to keep the committee stage going—because who would know your position? How is it that you are running the country? This is a simple piece of legislation. It is not that complicated. We are looking for a simple answer to a simple question. In 15 minutes we have had four different positions. It goes beyond comprehension. When are we going to get some competency? You now have two different positions before you. You have given them both. You have the position of, 'Yes, you can change to seven voyages through the middle of the year and that is all right'—even though you knew at the start that it was only three. Then you said, 'No.' Then you were back to yes. Which is it, Minister?
Senator, we know why you are keeping the committee stage going; it is because you want to filibuster this bill. It has nothing to do with any of the specifics of your question. I restate: there is a requirement under this bill for a minimum of five voyages. A shipper may apply for any number above five and may apply for that at any time throughout the year.
It is not Phil or Buster who is going to help you here. The issue is this. It may be that you do not want to answer—after the issue of having to retract your statement on the position of the Australian Shipowners Association after it was quoted back to you. That is thanks to Ms Finlay who managed to dig it out. She is obviously a very capable lady. You have five staff here in the chamber. We have one. Now we have a position where you are accusing us of filibustering when really the way to get yourself out of this hole is to answer the question.
To answer the question is quite simple. We set down clear criteria at the start. We gave a little story to go with it so that there was no way you could be confused. We asked quite clearly, 'If they started the year and they needed three ships and then the wheat harvest came in and they needed seven and it was in the 12-month period, could they apply for a temporary licence?' You stood—looked straight across—and said the answer was yes. I was happy because we had just changed government policy. It took 20 minutes. You started off by saying, 'No, you could not,' and then you gave me the answer yes. I thought: 'Beauty. We'll go to the vote. That's it. Locked in. Job done.' Then there was panic, and in panic he said 'We'll go back and give the generic "Let's talk about the number five"'. Just like Sesame Street. This really was not an answer or a non-answer; it was a nothing.
Then you confirmed, Senator Carr, that the answer you gave was the right answer. And so we are happy again. It means that we can apply for a temporary licence midway through the year. We are happy again. But we are oscillating around—that was the fourth change in position. Now we are back to the statement about it having to be five. So now we are unhappy. We do not know whether we are happy or unhappy. We are totally and utterly confused. You really need to go back to the question that we asked you—that is clearly on the record—and give an answer to the scenario that we laid down. That encapsulates the question. It was quite clear. They start the year and only need three. They find out later it is going to be a busy year. The wheat harvest comes in. They are going to need seven and will therefore need a temporary licence. Can they get one: yes or no? The answer you gave was on the Hansard: 'Yes'. In fact, you said it again.
Now we have the position of the government saying yes. In answer No. 5, you confirmed that the answer is yes. Now we are in a position where we really do not know the position. This is important. I bet you there are people listening to this trying to work out what on earth the government's position will be next.
Can't you make him shut up!
We are only too happy to cease the debate when we get some sort of answer out of the minister that is comprehendible. What we have had today is complete absurdity. If we can get a straight answer, we can bring things to a conclusion. Just go back to the scenario and answer the question. You might want to say, Minister, that when you answered with the word 'yes' you actually meant to say the word 'no'. You made a little mistake—you said yes and you should have said no. But you are trying to get around it by not actually answering the question. Do you want to reflect on your answer now and say, 'Excuse me; when I said yes, I actually meant to say no'?
The natural state of affairs for the National Party is confusion. The natural state of affairs for you, Senator Barnaby Joyce, is of course confusion. You are seeking to filibuster this bill because you do not want to face up to your responsibilities to this country. You wrap yourself in the flag at every opportunity, but you refuse to actually do anything to defend Australian workers or defend Australian jobs. You have one interest, and that is to serve foreign interests. That is the name of the game, Senator. You are a disgrace.
Well, that made sense!
Are you unclear about that?
That is a lot clearer now! Was that a yes or a no? Apparently, the problem is that I am wrapping myself in the Australian flag—why didn't I think of that? That was obviously the answer we were looking for, Ms Finlay!
The problem is that it is not about an answer of yes or no, it is not about the fact that we cannot get a straight answer; it is about some clandestine plot, personally orchestrated by me, to bring down the nation! I knew that that was what we were looking for! This is absurd. This is a senior member of the government of Australia. What a joke. What a ridiculous state of affairs. They are so utterly incompetent, so totally bereft of any capability whatsoever that they cannot read their own submission. Their own quotes are handed back to them and proved to be wrong. They end up with four, five and then six positions between five and 20 minutes. They are supposed to represent the government.
They get frustrated. They cannot answer the question. The minister cannot even correct himself and say, 'No, I made a mistake'—I am sure there is a less genteel way to put it—'I made a big boo-boo and I really should correct the record.' Does he correct the record? No. He goes into some diatribe about wrapping people in the Australian flag, traitors, Prince Philip, a one-world government and who knows what else, but he cannot actually give an answer. The thing about this is that it is such a classic exemplar of what this government is. These are the people who, in a couple of weeks, are going to cool the planet. Honestly, it is Pythonesque.
What exactly was that about me wrapping myself in the Australian flag and being the servant of foreign interests? Where does that sort of tripe come from? Why don't you just brief yourself on the legislation that is before you? Can't you understand how totally and utterly foolish saying that makes you look? Do you even comprehend how absolutely ridiculous you looked then? Does it make any sense to you? Do you care? Why don't you just go back to the record and correct your position? I am going to hold you to it. You have said the word 'yes'.
Senator, through the chair.
Madam Chair, I am going to hold him to it. His position is on the Hansard. He is a minister representing the government. He was given a direct question. He was asked to elucidate and he was given a framework in which to give a position, to answer the question. We even gave him a little story so he would not get confused. He gave the answer that, yes, people can get a temporary licence. It is on the Hansard; the answer is yes. That is the position he has given. That is now the position of the government. He was given the opportunity to retract it. He refused to retract it. Instead of retracting it, he told a story about me, by myself, somehow orchestrating from this side of the chamber a plan to bring down Australia, about me being the servant of foreign interests. And of course that is so logical!
Now we are sitting around waiting for an answer from the minister representing the Crown, the Hon. Kim Carr, who has accused me of being an agent of foreign governments and disguising it by seeking the refuge of a rogue, wrapping myself in the Australian flag. All I am really looking for is an explanation of the answer he gave, when he said yes. That was it, a monosyllabic 'yes', which was supposed to be a monosyllabic 'no', and he just does not have the capacity to go back to his position and correct the record.
You're Clive Palmer's agent.
Is this your faction leader? Of course, you're making as much sense as him, Senator Cameron!
You're Gina Rinehart's agent—off to India in the jet.
I will take the interjection. The answer is not yes or no; the answer is actually that I am a secret service agent working for another government! I know this to be the case because Minister Carr has told me. I am a secret service agent. He is a complete and utter fool. This man is a clown.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Joyce be agreed to.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
I inform the Senate that Senator Bob Carr, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be absent from the Senate this week. As a result, we have sought to allocate his responsibilities at question time. Senator Conroy will represent him in his foreign affairs portfolio and in his representative portfolio of trade and competitiveness. I will represent him in his role representing the ministers for defence, defence materiel, veterans' affairs, and defence science and personnel.
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Can the minister advise the Senate by how much the carbon tax will reduce emissions in its first three years of operation?
As the Senate would know, the government's position is the same as that of the opposition, which is a five per cent reduction by 2020 of 2000 levels. The legislation the government has put forward will ensure that caps are set over the period out to 2020 beyond the fixed price period in order to achieve that outcome.
I would make the point that, just as the government has a commitment to a five per cent reduction by 2020, so do the opposition. Of course, the difference is that the government's policy will cost Australians less. It will cost Australian households less, Australian taxpayers less and Australian business less. The reality is that, should the opposition ever be in a position to implement their so-called 'Direct Action' policy, the economy would be far worse off than under a carbon price, which economists have told both sides of politics, including Prime Minister Howard, is the most efficient way to reduce emissions. In terms of the actual abatement outcome for the first three years, I will take that part of the question on notice and I will see if I can assist the cackling Senator Abetz with that information in the near future.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister cannot tell us by how much the carbon tax will reduce emissions, can the government give any guarantees at all that its carbon tax will cause any reduction in emissions, especially in world emissions, in its first three years of operation?
The senator verballed me in the second question, which is not unusual for him—when the facts do not give rise to a scare campaign, let's just make the facts up. The reality is that we have always made clear, as have the opposition, our objective in terms of reduction by 2020. That has been the basis on which the discussion has proceeded. In fact, it is the same basis on which the opposition's policy is predicated: five per cent by 2020. I am sure the opposition would not be able to tell anybody how much abatement each year will occur, and what they certainly do not want to do is tell people how much it will cost them under their system—$1,300 per year per household. That is what the opposition are going to impose—$1,300 more in tax that would have to be paid by Australian households to reach the outcome that they also have signed up to. They do not like to tell people that.
This question fundamentally goes to whether or not we should have a carbon price. The government believes we should. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Of course, the Prime Minister said, fundamentally, that there will be no carbon tax under a government she leads. My question is: given that the carbon tax is expected to raise about $27.5 billion in its first three years of operation without any reduction in carbon emissions, will the minister admit that the carbon tax is simply another revenue raiser to pay for the Gillard government's bloated and excessive spending?
Absolutely not. As the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate well knows, the government has in place a substantial reform package associated with the revenue from the carbon price and half of that will go back to Australian households. It is surprising that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate would in fact even ask me that, because I would have thought the opposition would not want to be talking about the fact that they will go to the election saying that they will roll back the tax cuts that the government is proposing. That is what they have said. They might have missed it, but Mr Hockey made it very clear that he is going to roll back the tax changes, the tax cuts, that this government is putting in place associated with the clean energy package, including the tripling of the tax-free threshold, which would be good for second income earners and particularly good for women re-entering the workforce and good for low-income Australians. The coalition will go to the next election saying to every Australian— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. Given that at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in 2009 the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, agreed to phase out and rationalise inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, of which Treasury had identified 17, and that a Global Subsidies Initiative report recently concluded that the Australian government could save at least $7.2 billion a year by phasing out measures supporting the production and consumption of fossil fuels, what is the Prime Minister reporting to the G20 on behalf of the Australian government with regard to Australia's progress in phasing out these fossil fuel subsidies?
I am aware of the report to which Senator Milne refers. I am also aware that the government took a position previously with which Senator Milne was, if I may say, unhappy—did not agree with—on a range of policy measures which were not regarded as falling within the remit of the G20 agreement. I will take on notice what additional information I can provide from the Treasurer on this issue, but I would say to the senator, given her previous public criticisms of this issue, that I doubt that the government has changed its position. You might recall that a number of the issues which would have been included in that list from the senator's perspective from her public comments were issues which the government has chosen not to alter in terms of the recent budget decisions, notwithstanding that there was some public suggestion of consideration.
As I said, I will see if I can get any further information on what has been done in the G20 context on the subsidy issue. But I would say to you, Senator, that our position has to my knowledge not changed since our previous position and that I am aware that you have previously criticised it.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the face of accelerating global warming and the introduction of a price on pollution next month, is it not inconsistent to provide $7.2 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies such as fuel tax credits, accelerated depreciation for miners and exploration subsidies for oil and gas, massively dwarfing government assistance to renewable energy?
This is an issue on which Senator Milne knows the government and the Greens party do not agree. We do believe that industries such as mining have a strong future and are important to the Australian economy. We are pleased at the increase in investment in mining which we see planned for 2012-13. It is some 2½ times what was invested in 2010, and this puts paid completely to the scare campaign from those opposite. We do believe that these sectors are important to the Australian economy, just as we also believe that a carbon price is the most effective way that we can give the incentive for greater investment in clean energy processes, clean energy technology and clean energy industries.
The senator put a proposition to me, and the answer to that question is: no, the government does not agree, and the government believes that some of the industries that she has referenced are extremely important to the Australian economy.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer, but I ask: isn't the Prime Minister's focus on economic growth while maintaining fossil fuel subsidies completely inconsistent with the World Economic Forum and G20 agenda of severing the link between economic growth and resource consumption and depletion and adverse environmental impact?
The best way to separate economic growth from pollution is to put in place a broad-based carbon price, and that is what the government is doing. As the senator well knows, the reasons for that are: first, you create an incentive for businesses to pollute less; second, you create an incentive for business to move to better ways of doing business and cleaner ways of manufacturing and cleaner processes; third, you create an incentive for investors; and, fourth—and this is one of the policy consequences that is not often spoken about—a price on carbon is a signal to investors about where to invest. We do not share the views that are behind what the senator is putting to me—that is, that the way forward for the Australian economy is to simply shut down particular industries. Those industries are important to our economy. They remain important for jobs and important for Australians.
My question is to Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Australian economy continues to perform strongly despite the challenges in the global economy?
I thank Senator Gallacher for his question. The Australian economy is a clear standout performer in the developed world. All Australians should be very proud of this remarkable achievement, especially during one of the more difficult times for the world economy—one of the worst since the Great Depression. But, despite the great challenges for the economies of Europe and North America, it is clear how resilient the economy of Australia is, with good growth, low inflation and low unemployment.
Overnight we were reminded about the great challenges ahead for Europe with the second Greek election. Whatever the final outcome of the election, we are urging the region's policy-makers to progress their fiscal reforms so that they can boost growth and put their public finances on a sustainable footing. That is the message the Prime Minister has taken with her to the G20 leaders' summit in Mexico this week, and we know that Europe must heed it.
We know that we are not immune from what happens in Europe and more broadly in the global economy, but we also know that the Australian economy's resilience is strong. Our economy grew by 1.3 per cent in the March quarter and 4.3 per cent throughout the last year. This is faster growth than that of any other major advanced economy. Our interest rates are low with the RBA cutting the cash rate to 3.5 per cent, providing additional help for households and small businesses with a cash rate lower than it was at any time under the Howard government.
With such strong results, Australians should be confident about our future and about the Australian economy. With record investment in the pipeline, strong public finances, contained inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment, there is more opportunity than ever before to see everyone participate in a strong economy and take advantage of the opportunities it presents.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister update the Senate on how the strong economy continues to support jobs?
The government's sound economic management is helping to deliver a very strong economy. During the global financial crisis the government's No. 1 priority was to support growth and support jobs, and today the Australian economy is nearly 10 per cent bigger than it was before the GFC. This is quite remarkable—it is now 10 per cent bigger than it was prior to the global financial crisis. A bigger economy means more jobs for Australians. As we know, the unemployment rate is lower at 5.1 per cent with nearly 40,000 jobs added in May alone and 800,000 since Labor came to office.
We know that the key to the prosperity of Australia and its people is the creation of jobs and providing good quality jobs for Australians who want to work. The Australian economy is doing that. This government's stewardship is ensuring that Australians get the opportunity to work and support their families.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware of any risk to the long-term strength of the Australian economy?
The government is absolutely focused on ensuring our economy continues to outperform the rest of the developed world, and it is a pity the opposition continued to talk down that economy, talk down confidence in the Australian economy, because that confidence will help build more jobs, more investment and more success for the Australian economy. I know their spokespeople were struck dumb over Australia's recent economic data. They were disappointed that Australia is going so well and that we are creating wealth for all Australians.
By investing in our human capital, by investing in education, higher education and skills, we are building capacity in our people to continue to take advantage of their abilities and innovation. It is a shame that the opposition do not go out and talk up the economy and help build confidence which will allow us to create even more jobs and opportunities for Australians. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the announcement by Fairfax Media today that it plans to slash 1,900 jobs and close its Chullora and Tullamarine printing presses by June 2014. Is the minister aware that every significant stage of the Fairfax production chain, from the cost of power to produce newsprint to the cost of fuel to transport that newsprint, to the cost of electricity to operate the printing plants, to the cost of distribution will be directly affected by the carbon tax? Does the minister accept any responsibility for the loss of yet thousands more Australian jobs as a direct result of this toxic tax based on a lie?
Have you ever heard of the internet?
That is a fairly desperately long bow, to mix my metaphors. I know that the opposition want to believe that pricing carbon is responsible for ending civilisation as we know it, but to seriously suggest that a business decision made by a media company is something to do with a carbon price is a seriously odd thing to do. I am not an expert in this issue and I suspect Senator Conroy could give you a much lengthier discussion than I could—
It would be lengthy!
It would be lengthy and it would be most illuminating for you, Senator Fifield. He could give you a very lengthy discussion about the various pressures driving changes in that sector. I would have thought the internet might have something to do with it. This is just another example of the sort of overblown claims that we saw from the other side.
I saw Mr Abbott in recent times has moved away from the carbon price being a 'wrecking ball' to now saying that is actually going to be a 'python squeeze rather than a cobra strike', trying to segue away from some of the ridiculous propositions that were put out there as part of the scare campaign, including that a town in my home state of South Australia would be wiped off the map. I tell you what: I reckon it is still going to be there on 2 July.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the statement made by Fairfax Media in its announcement this morning that the business is 'already operating in very challenging times' why has the government made those existing difficulties even worse at the cost of nearly 2,000 jobs by introducing the world's biggest carbon tax at the worst possible time?
Unless the senator has got a quote somewhere, I have not noticed anybody suggesting that the carbon price is responsible for the reconfiguration of the media landscape in this country. I suspect that might be occurring for a range of different reasons.
Could be!
It just might be! I think it is another example of an increasingly desperate scare campaign where, to try to make themselves relevant today, the opposition are actually jumping on today's story and trying to link it somehow to carbon. It is a pretty extraordinary position.
In terms of where the economy is at, because there was some implication about that in the question, I again reiterate what Senator Evans, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has said: we have low unemployment, we have created over 800,000 jobs since we came to government, we have an economy that is over 10 per cent bigger than when we came to power, we have inflation contained and we have interest rates falling. So the sort of gloom and doom that is behind Senator Brandis's question— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. What is the government's message to the some 1,900 Fairfax Media employees whose jobs have been destroyed by its carbon tax? Why are they faced with unemployment? Why are their families faced with hardship when Julia Gillard went to the last election promising there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads?
I would say to them: do not trust Senator Brandis and the opposition in this disgraceful fear campaign. If you really cared about the loss of jobs, Senator, you would not come in here trying to link it to a political scare campaign. If you really cared about the families, you would not come into this chamber and disgracefully use people's commercial decisions which will impact upon those families for your political purposes. So do not come in here and tell us that we do not care, because I think people who are worried about what is happening in their employment at Fairfax are not going to take too kindly to you rocking up into the Senate chamber and asking ridiculous questions in an attempt to link it to your carbon scare campaign. The reality is that we on this side do care about employment, we care about workers. That is why we put jobs first. That is why 800,000 jobs have been created since we came to government. That is why we got rid of Work Choices, something you still want to bring back. Do not come in here and talk to us about job security, Senator Brandis. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and it relates to the announcement by Fairfax this morning. I will keep my question free of references to the carbon tax and I ask the minister that he do the same. When will the government take action to bring forward to this parliament the recommendations of the Convergence Review, particularly those relating to media diversity, alternative media and the public interest test for media ownership?
I thank Senator Ludlam for his question and for his ongoing interest in this portfolio area. Today's announcement by Fairfax Media reflects the significant changes that have occurred and that are continuing to take place in the communications and media landscape, both domestically and internationally. It is important that firms which operate in the media and communications sector continue to innovate and adapt to the changes that digital and online technologies are delivering. More broadly, as the economy becomes more and more digital, the effect of this change is being felt across many sectors of our economy. The government's investment in the NBN will both support and accelerate this; as some jobs disappear, new jobs will be created.
A Warsaw-Pact-style statement!
Yes, a Warsaw-Pact-style statement. A report from McKinsey Global Institute—a front for the Warsaw Pact—in May 2011, estimated that, for every job lost due to the internet, 2.6 jobs are created. That is not to suggest for a moment that anyone has no feelings towards the 1,900 workers who will lose their jobs over the next few years, because that is a concern. But, as the McKinsey Global Institute report suggests, our economy is growing and opening up in other areas.
I was asked about the Convergence Review. We are giving consideration to all of the issues recommended by the Convergence Review. We will finalise those and bring them forward as we have indicated. Are we accelerating it due to today's announcement? I do not foresee that. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the government believe that Fairfax should review its decision after consultation with staff? In particular, will the minister commit to ensuring that retrenched workers, particularly print workers, are looked after and given opportunities for retraining and reskilling?
Some of that question, I suspect, goes more to the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations than to me, but it is a very fair question. In an economy that is as robust as ours, we have to ensure—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Oh, Senator Macdonald is awake! At least Senator Macdonald is awake; that is an improvement. Senator Macdonald thinks that four per cent economic growth is not a robust economy. Senator Macdonald continues to pretend that we are like the Greek economy. He is now as big a laughing stock as that which Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott turned themselves into just a week or so ago.
I will speak with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to see what we are able to do to assist those workers in this circumstance. Many in this chamber who have been around for a while will remember that Kodak used to have a factory in Brunswick in Melbourne. I know that Senator Kim Carr will remember that issue, on which the government assisted. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the government concerned about reports that Gina Rinehart is seeking editorial control over Fairfax? Does the minister believe that competition laws will be sufficient to ensure a diverse media landscape?
I can only say that I support 100 per cent, as I am sure you do, Senator Ludlam, the comments of Mr Turnbull earlier today. Mr Turnbull talked about the importance of not having your business interests conflicting with your media interests—Mr Turnbull, who understands the concept of public trust journalism. Mr Turnbull was right. I can only agree with you that it would be a destruction of the Fairfax company, ultimately, if it agreed to give up its charter of editorial independence. This is a vital part—
Senator Brandis interjecting—
She is welcome to be on the board; she is welcome to launch a takeover. She can do either of those things, because that is the law. But what is vital is that the editorial charter be maintained. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Human Services, Senator Kim Carr. Can the minister advise the Senate what the government is doing to help people struggling with rising power bills?
I thank Senator Cameron for his concern for the most vulnerable in our society, who of course need our help the most. The fact is that across this country energy prices have been rising for years. That is unrelated to the carbon price. To the extent that the carbon price will drive an increase in costs the government will help to ensure those costs can be met. The revenue it is raising will directly support nine in 10 households. Almost six million households in the greatest need will receive assistance that fully covers the cost or exceeds the estimated price impact. We are not waiting for the first power bills to fall due; we are delivering payments right now as part of the clean energy advance. These payments started rolling out in May through the Department of Human Services. I can now report to the Senate that the department has already advanced $1.18 billion in assistance to 5.8 million Australians—on budget and on schedule. Payments have gone straight to people's bank accounts without requiring action from them. I can also advise the Senate that people who need to run essential medical equipment at home can apply from today for an annual payment of $140. Struggling households that are not able to receive assistance will also be able to apply for a special $300 low-income supplement from 1 July this year. This is a practical response. It is practical assistance for people who need to face the reality of rising costs.
Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Is the government confident that these payments will be sufficient for families already struggling with the costs of raising a child?
Nothing is more important to the government than helping families meet these costs. We have taken the view that every child is entitled to a fair go in life wherever they live and whatever their family's income. That is why we also introduced the schoolkids bonus. As I reported to the Senate last month, 1.2 million families of 2.2 million children will see money in their bank accounts twice a year every year from January next year. Families will also receive a one-off lump sum payment replacing the old education tax refund this month. The Department of Human Services advised me that the first payments will be actioned tonight, to appear in bank accounts on Wednesday, and more will follow in the fortnight ahead. We expect the department to administer more than $1.4 billion in payments to households before the month is out. This is money they would not have if the coalition had had their way. (Time expired)
Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate how the government responds to concerns that these payments will encourage a culture of entitlement?
This is a country that aspires to do great things. It says that every one of its people is entitled to a share in that aspiration. It is not a privilege; it is a right, and it is the Australian way. For more than a century we have defended a minimum wage, unemployment benefits, pensions for the aged and for invalids, child endowment and universal secular education. In my lifetime we have introduced the universal healthcare scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We are trendsetters for our neighbours. We are the envy of the Western and developed world. This government will not renounce our legacy and join a global race to the bottom. That stands in contrast to the approach that is taken by those opposite. It seems that the shadow Treasurer has made Asia, if not Greece, the inspiration for his social welfare under a Liberal future. It is easy to prescribe hard medicine if you do not have to taste it yourself. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Senator Conroy. Is the minister aware of the concerns raised by Allan Hansard, the CEO of the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, which represents five million recreational fishers, when he says the marine bioregion closures will lock fishers out of Australia's oceans and many iconic fishing spots and that mums, dads and kids will be banned from trying to catch fish? The government has said it will compensate commercial fishermen for losses resulting from the marine bioregion closures. What form of compensation does the government intend to offer recreational fishermen, who are normally blue-collar workers, who have been let down badly by the Greens-Labor alliance that has locked them out of their traditional fishing areas?
I thank Senator Boswell for his question, although I have to start by rejecting the premise of it. The Gillard government is committed to delivering a national network of marine reserves to protect our precious marine environment for future generations. The government has announced where these protected regions will be, and this provides certainty for industry. We have designed the reserves to avoid impact on fishers and regional communities as much as possible. We will be delivering an adjustment package in the vicinity of $100 million. That will be worked through on a case-by-case basis.
These new reserves will not stop recreational fishers from doing what they love. The bottom line is that, for 96 per cent of the ocean from the shore out to 100 kilometres, access to recreational fishing remains unchanged. The job of the government now is to work with industry to get the management and adjustment policies in place and done right. The announced reserve plans will not come into effect until we have the right management arrangements and assistance measures in place.
The minister understands and recognises the importance of the fishing industry right around Australia. The minister is a strong supporter of Australian fishers and Australian fisheries. Our fisheries are in top shape, they are well managed and the industry has a positive future. Our fishers are innovative, productive, compassionate— (Time expired)
Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Is it the government's intention to compensate fishing tackle shops, charter fishing operators, marine dealers, fish processors, the outboard motor industry and any other associated marine industries for the loss of business that will result from the lockout of both commercial and recreational fishers?
The government will deliver an assistance package in the vicinity of $100 million. That will be worked through on a case-by-case basis. This adjustment will flow before the reserves are activated. There will be a range of impacts on industry. Now that the final reserves have been announced, we can work out who will need what. The minister will build with industry a tailored package to meet each of those needs. We are going to work to help those who want and are able to change their business model. They might change where they fish, how they fish and the type of fish they catch. They may also want to leave the industry entirely. We will build a package that can suit each of these needs. We will provide direct business support— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware of Mr Hansard's statement that recreational anglers have been locked out of Osprey Reef in the Coral Sea, Geographe Bay, the Perth trench, Dampier and other areas and that there will be 'significant implications on the coastal communities that support recreational fishing'? Will the government offer compensation to the coastal communities that will lose significant revenue through tourism and visitations from amateurs who want to fish in these areas?
I think what is relevant here is the fact that the governments are committed to a compensation package on a case-by-case basis. But I would like to draw the chamber's and the President's attention to a flyer that has come to my attention called 'Save our marine life'. It reads:
Many Curtin residents are concerned about Australia's marine life and have contacted the Curtin electorate office expressing that concern.
Mr President, a point of order on relevance. Senator Boswell clearly asked: will those small businesses negatively affected by this decision be compensated? There was nothing to do with some bit of paper that has come to Senator Conroy's attention. Will you please direct him to answer Senator Boswell's question.
There is no point of order. The minister is answering the question. He has 30 seconds remaining to address the question.
The flyer continues:
"Australia’s coastal waters are filled with unique marine flora and fauna, particularly in the south west coastal waters of Western Australia, and it is important that we encourage the protection and preservation of our marine ecological environment," Julie said.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. You ruled on Senator Williams's point of order that this was a relevant answer. I cannot possibly see how this can be relevant when I asked a question on what compensation will be paid to communities and I am told that some piece of paper refers to 'save our seas' or something like this.
'Save our marine life'.
Save our marine life. Mr President, you cannot possibly rule that as relevant and be serious.
There is no point of order. Senator Boswell, your question was a lot broader than that. The minister is being relevant. He has 19 seconds remaining.
So here it is—'Julie said'. I heard a moment ago from one of my colleagues, 'Julie who?' Well, it may come as a surprise to some on the opposite side of the chamber that it is Ms Julie Bishop, advertising a 'Save our marine life' bumper sticker. Have you actually met Ms Bishop recently? Have you tried to stop playing the game of walking both sides— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Ludwig. Can the minister please outline to the Senate what the government is doing to invest in health care and hospitals in Tasmania?
I thank Senator Urquhart for her continuing interest in health. I know we on this side have a longstanding commitment to improving health care and hospitals for the long term. The senator is quite right to identify the importance of health care and hospitals, and this government has been strongly investing in them and the services they provide to all Australians. We are investing $325 million to help get Tasmania's health system back on track. The Gillard government is taking important steps to support Tasmania's health system to cope with an older population, higher rates of chronic disease and health system constraints. The support package will address the unique challenges faced by this state. What this shows is that the Gillard Labor government does not just talk about improving health care for Australians; it actually goes and gets the work done.
The money will pay for elective surgery, new clinics, mental health and specialist training—actions that will ease immediate pressures and equip Tasmania's health system to meet future challenges through the following investments over the next four years. There is $31 million for elective surgery. There will be two new walk-in health centres in Hobart and Launceston costing $22 million. There is $48 million to improve care in the community. There is additional money for post-discharge and palliative care and funding for medical specialist training, mental health services and the rollout of personal electronic health record systems in local hospitals.
These investments respond to the ideas that frontline clinicians have told the minister for health will be the best way to assist Tasmania's health system. The investment will also better position Tasmania to meet the goals and targets of the national health reform. Why? Because the Labor government is committed to seeing more services on the ground for Tasmanians— (Time expired)
Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Given the government's record of investment in health and hospitals in Tasmania and across Australia, can the minister outline the track record of the government in this regard? Why is investment in health care and hospitals so important?
The Gillard government has made a once-in-a-generation health reform agreement with the states and territories. It will mean more beds, more funding, more transparency, less bureaucracy, less waste and less waiting for patients. When it comes to the stagnant performance in health spending, you have to look no further than the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, who cut $1 billion when he was health minister and who is now searching for $70 billion of service cuts. Labor's health reform will ensure 1,300 more subacute beds are available and that we have better emergency departments and more elective surgery. To fill the $70 billion of cuts to services, Mr Abbott would have to cut those and much, much more. Labor's health reform will keep people healthy and out of hospital, providing more health services closer to home. This includes— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the government is committed to the future of health and hospitals for the benefit of all Australians, are there any uncertainties when it comes to health funding into the future? And how can the government ensure that those investments will result in improved health services for Tasmania?
I have outlined to the Senate the areas in which we know the Liberals and Nationals will make cuts to health and hospital services. They will have to find the $70 billion worth of cuts—and they will take it out of health, I have no doubt. The great uncertainty for all Australians is that the Liberals and Nationals have not announced just where those cuts are likely to come from. But, given their record, we know on this side that they will be making service cuts in health and hospitals. The Liberals and Nationals stand for only one thing: the power of no—no to health reform, no to PBS reform, no to private health insurance reform, no to a Preventive Health Agency, no to better health and hospital funding, no to extra front-line services. The Nationals always call for more services to regional Australia. I call on them to stand up to the power of no from their coalition partners. The Nationals should safeguard things like the $160 million for— (Time expired)
My question is to Senator Conroy, representing the environment minister, and it is about marine reserves. Minister, could you tell us how the government intends to police the marine park boundaries, particularly those in the Coral Sea, which go out about 1,000 kilometres? You will be aware that in the past commercial fishermen were the best guardians of those boundaries. Now that they will be removed, what will stop the Taiwanese, Chinese, Indonesian and other foreign boats from coming in and raping and pillaging in the Coral Sea?
Government senators interjecting—
Bearing in mind that no Commonwealth naval or Customs assets will be available—they have all left the east coast and gone over to try to shore up the porous borders on the north-west, and Queensland does not have any boats to do it—how are you going to police these boundaries?
I should not be churlish, so I thank Senator Macdonald for his question. There is an excuse for Senator Boswell having never met Ms Bishop, but there is none for you. Do you have a bumper sticker, 'Save our marine life'? Have you joined up with Ms Bishop on this? I mean, seriously: the National Party can play this game, but certainly the Liberal Party cannot.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It may well be relatively early in the answer, but merely abusing the person who asked the question—in a smart alec, larrikin way, as Senator Conroy does—cannot be regarded as relevant, either directly or indirectly, to anything Senator Macdonald asks.
Mr President, I rise on this point of order. I did not do so during Senator Macdonald's question, although I thought about doing so. When the senator ask the question in which he accuses foreign fishermen of 'raping and pillaging', he does actually invite a debate or an answer at the rhetorical level rather than at the level of clear analysis.
Don't you know what the word 'pillage' is?
I am not sure 'raping' is part of that process. I know what pillaging is. I am not sure that the use of the term 'raping' was appropriate.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! This is not the time for debate.
Nevertheless, I suggest that, given the breadth and the cerebral nature of the question, Senator Conroy is perhaps in order to respond in whatever way he feels like.
My question is clearly about how you police those borders. It has nothing to do with Ms Bishop or any flyer or anything else. As a former fisheries minister, I am aware of how foreign fishermen do rape and pillage our fisheries.
There is no point of order. Senator Conroy has the call.
I also draw the attention of those in the chamber to the fact that Mr Peter Lindsay has been publicly advertising in support of the government's position—the former member from out that way. You may have met Mr Lindsay.
Mr President, it does not need me to raise this point of order. I am not arguing about the decision to create marine reserves; I am asking how they are going to police them. It is a very specific area of questioning, and the minister has not gone anywhere near it in the time he has been going. It does not need me to raise these points of order. You should hold the minister to account.
The minister has the call.
Senator Macdonald just might want to ignore members of his own current parliamentary party. He just might want to ignore former members who are very well known to him, and their position on this issue. He is trying to create an issue. We will work with the industry and we will work with the relevant authorities to ensure that there is policing in this way. The network of marine parks will have little to no impact on recreational fishing—as I have already stated—while securing our ocean environments for the future.
Mr President, I again ask you to ask the minister to refer to the question. I did not mention recreational fishing. I spoke about commercial fishing, about how the minister and his government are going to police the boundaries and about the rules he has put in place.
Mr President, on that point of order, Senator Conroy has highlighted that this will be a matter for consultation. That he has gone broader than that in his answer is obviously a response to the nature of the question. When Senator Macdonald chooses to ask a question accusing foreign fishermen of 'raping and pillaging', he cannot be surprised by the response, as Senator Evans says.
I am listening very closely to the minister's answer. The minister has 43 seconds remaining on the clock to address the question.
The recreational, charter and commercial fishing industries will also have their say on plans to manage the use of the reserves. The government will work with the recreational sector and with the charter sector, who access these marine environments, to get the management arrangements right. We will consult with all affected parts of the industry to ensure that we get this right. We will work constructively with the industry. That is what we are committed to.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My question is again on marine reserves and follows up on Senator Boswell's question, which the minister has mentioned again. Could the minister identify where in the budget an allowance has been made for the $100 million compensation that has been spoken about? How will it impact upon the forecast budget surplus? Also, how will this $100 million be divided between commercial fishers, associated industries, communities and individuals?
I thank Senator Macdonald for his question. The government will update its budget figures in MYEFO, later in the year, as it does every year. I think it is a legitimate question. We will be giving a full update on the budget later in the year. We are not simply going to respond to calls from those opposite, who had barely met their own parliamentary colleagues before they started demanding answers from us. Why don't you go and get a bumper sticker from Ms Bishop? Why don't you, Senator Boswell, go and get a bumper sticker from Ms Bishop before you come in here with your hypotheses.
Senator Conroy, come back to the issue.
We will be updating the full budgetary impact of any and all decisions that are made over the course of the next few months, as is normal government procedure. It is the normal course of government business, just as it was for those opposite when they were in government.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. The minister will understand that as you restrict commercial fishing in a certain area those left in the fishing industry then concentrate in what fishing areas are left for the commercial fishing industry. Does the government intend to buy back commercial fishing licences in non-marine-reserve areas to reduce the pressure that will occur on those remaining fishing areas left in Australia?
I think I have already indicated this, but I am happy to repeat it for Senator Macdonald. There will be a range of impacts on the industry. Now that the final reserves have been announced, the government can work out who will need what. The government will build, with the industry, a tailored package to meet each of these needs. The government—
I rise on the question of relevance. I asked if the government would engage in a buy-back of existing licences to reduce or alleviate the increased pressure on those fishing areas that remain. It has nothing to do with compensation or whatever the minister is prattling on about.
I cannot instruct the minister on how to answer the question, but I believe the minister is answering the question. The minister has 34 seconds remaining on the clock.
I am actually describing our adjustment package. The government is going to work with those who want to, and are able to, change their business model. The individuals might change where they fish, how they fish and the type of fish they catch. They may also want to leave the industry entirely. The government will build a package that suits each of their needs. The government will provide direct business support to those who find that to be of the most value. We intend to support— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Sport, Senator Lundy. With the Olympic Games only 39 days away, and the Paralympics only 72 days away, can the minister inform the Senate how the Australian government is supporting our athletes in their journey to London?
Thank you Senator Thistlethwaite for your question. I know you are a big supporter of our athletes. The Olympics and Paralympics are fast approaching, and our athletes are putting the final touches to their efforts and preparations as they either are selected or become selected for the team going to London.
Each year the federal government contributes more than $170 million to high-performance sport in Australia. Of this $170 million more than $103 million is directed to sports that will be competing in London. The Gillard government understands how important this funding is to athletes' success. Within the $103 million, $8 million is provided to our athletes under Direct Athlete Support. This support ensures that our athletes who are not yet household names and who do not have the big sponsorship deals will have the means to support themselves during the intense training regimes required if they are to succeed on the international stage.
In addition to Direct Athlete Support the federal government, through the Australian Institute of Sport, has established a European training base, the European Training Centre, in Varese, Italy. This training centre has been going for some time now. The facility is for Australian athletes, with sports science and sports medicine capabilities, access to the best facilities in the region, and athlete career and education support, all within close proximity to the vast competition opportunities that exist in Europe. This AIS European Training Centre aims to replicate the training environment of the Australian Institute of Sport and provide athletes with a European home away from home. The centre enhances Australia's ability to maintain its competitive advantage when athletes are training or competing overseas—and we only need to look at the results from the Rowing World Cup over the weekend to see how the European Training Centre assisted them in their preparations.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate if the government has provided any additional funding to ensure that our athletes have the best possible preparation?
I again thank the senator for his question. I am very excited about the news from Munich yesterday and would like to extend my congratulations to Australia's Paralympics crews who won two very impressive gold medals. With only 72 days to go till the Paralympics start, it is an exciting prospect with so many medals on offer and such a strong performance. Before his retirement my predecessor, Mark Arbib, announced the Green and Gold project, which would provide $4.5 million—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Lundy, resume your seat. You are entitled to be heard in silence.
I would have thought senators opposite would have been interested in this. The whole country is waiting on tenterhooks in advance of the Olympics and Paralympics. But I was talking about the Green and Gold project, which provided $4.5 million in additional funding to boost our athletes' prospects of success in London. The aim was to invest in the nation's top performers, to turn the potential of fourth, fifth and sixth places into gold, silver and bronze medal chances. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Over the weekend the Australian Olympic Committee president, John Coates, said 'Australia has a chance at a top five placing on the medal tally'. How does the minister think Australia will perform in London? And does she have anything riding on our performance—a little wager, perhaps?
I, like John Coates, believe we have every chance, and all the faith in the world, that our Olympic team's performance in London will achieve their goals, and certainly achieve a top-five position. Just to give you a couple of examples: Australian sailors won four gold medals and a silver on the final day of the most recent regatta in Weymouth, and our cyclists picked up six gold medals and a total of 15 medals at the April world track championships in Melbourne. And I have already mentioned the strong results of our rowers over the weekend world cup in Munich. London is going to be one of the closest Olympics ever, but we have full faith in our athletes—and, when it counts, they will lift for our country. I know many of you will be glued to your television sets as we watch them.
I have made the traditional friendly wager with my counterpart sports minister in Britain, Hugh Robertson, that, should Australia beat Britain in the gold medal count, Minister Robertson will do a lap of Australia House wearing the Kookaburra's team kit with a hockey stick; and should Australia not beat Britain, I will be rowing down the Olympic course wearing a Stella McCartney UK team top. So, as you can see, there is a lot riding on this—and may we all wish our athletes the best!
I ask that all further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
Mr Deputy President, you would be aware that we are now in the final countdown, the final 14 days, before the introduction of the world's largest carbon tax—a carbon tax that you know, sir, is a tax on Australia, its businesses, its industries, its working families and its way of life. It is a tax that is being imposed on an economy that is open, that is competitive, that is energy rich and that of course is resource-intensive—a country that will suffer when this carbon tax comes in. That is what will happen in two weeks time. But I have noticed a funny little swerve in very recent times from the government. They now argue that there are other political parties, other governments, as stupid as this one.
No!
They do! They argue that there are other countries that are imposing a tax of this extent right throughout the world. And they hide behind the coat-tails, of course, of Nicholas Stern—now Lord Stern—who last week was quoted in the Australian as saying:
… there was evidence the Australian carbon price—$23 a tonne from July 1—was not excessive compared with prices in Norway, Britain and Switzerland.
That is right: Norway, Britain and Switzerland. You can imagine the sort of resource powerhouses that Norway, Britain and Switzerland are. You can imagine the carbon emissions from the chocolate, or the cuckoo clocks, or the watches, or the yodelling coming from Switzerland! They are missing the point, as is Lord Stern: the only thing that matters is what our competitor countries are doing—what are the other comparable economies doing; what are the other energy-rich, open, exposed economies doing? Well, who are they? What are the Chinese doing? The Scientific American, that famous scientific journal, says that, other than understating their carbon emissions, they are doing very little. Russia: very little. India: very little. Canada: very, very little. Also the United States. They are the comparable competitor countries that, just like Australia, want to sell resources, coal and gas overseas. They are not suffering. Their governments are not so stupid as to unilaterally place a carbon tax on their most efficient industries. This government does that. But the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Americans and the Canadians are not that stupid. What happens in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein or Monaco does not really matter. So the government saying that there are other comparable countries doing this is absolute and utter rubbish.
I have often spoken in this parliament about the great lie. My friends often talk about it being the lie of the Prime Minister when she said that there would not be a carbon tax under the government she led. That is not the greatest lie. The greatest lie is that this tax, the unilateral imposition of a carbon tax on an economy like Australia's, is in our national interest. The greatest lie this government has ever perpetrated in its five years in government is to stand up before the Australian people and say, 'It is in your interest that we pay this tax,' when the Canadians, the Americans, the Indians, the Russians and the Chinese will not do it.
Our economy is more exposed than that of any other country on earth. In two weeks time our economy will start to suffer; it will start to suffer from the word go. We now know following question time what the government's result will be at the end of all this—that is, how much our emissions will go down—
Opposition senators interjecting—They will go up!
They will actually go up. They will rise slowly. They will apparently rise more slowly than they otherwise would. This, in the end, is social democratic churn dressed up as environmentalism. It is pathetic. (Time expired)
I too rise to take note of answers to questions asked today. If we are to believe Senator Mason, then the sky is falling and we are all Chicken Littles running around, waiting to see civilisation as we know it cease in two weeks time. However, what we need to understand and what we on this side of the chamber and this government recognise is that of course it is in Australia's national interest to continue to work to achieve the international goal of limiting global warming. Everything that has been shaped in the clean energy package is about doing exactly that. It is a critical imperative for us. It is a critical imperative for Australian domestic and international commitments on climate change and clean energy that we stand firm, drive hard change and lead in this debate where others would prefer us to be following along like sheep.
It does not matter who you go to—whether it is the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Academy of Science or any of the science academies around the world—everyone is agreed that climate change is real and action has to be taken to deal with it. The carbon price, despite the nonsense that you have just heard from Senator Mason, is a very realistic carbon price. It is one that, as we heard today in question time, provides the incentives to industry to move to clean energy technologies and it gives signals to industry about where to move. I do not think you can be clearer than that about the purpose and the direction of the clean energy package and the carbon price.
The challenge we have had, and the way we have dealt with the package, has been to ensure that those people who are least able to meet the needs of the carbon price are compensated. An extensive carbon compensation package has been outlined and we have heard about it incessantly, week after week, in this place and in the public debate. However, we have seen that there are those who are prepared to use sleight of hand. While the federal government compensates, governments like that of New South Wales are very keen to see what they can do to claw back some of that money for their own purposes. We saw that last week in the announcement by the New South Wales government to take some of that money from New South Wales pensioners living in public housing and add it to the public housing rents. This is just a blatant cash grab by the New South Wales government. It is quite a shameful exercise. The New South Wales government says, 'We need this money to repair and support public housing,' when in fact the Treasury model shows us that the cost of house repairs as a result of the carbon price is less than one per cent, which is around a third of what the New South Wales government is claiming.
So let us be quite honest and realistic about this nonsense debate that we have been having: it is a stunt. It is the continuing circus routine that we have seen about fear and misrepresentation. As the date gets closer, the rhetoric gets more and more ridiculous, because the opposition will say anything and do anything. They just will not accept the facts.
The Rio 20 summit, which is being held this week, is all about our environment. Everywhere around the world people are talking about climate change, environmental damage and how we can take action on that. On the other side, we still have the debate about whether climate change is real. So that is the nonsense basis on which we have to have a debate here today. Nevertheless, we will continue to see this debate carried on—because on 1 July the sky will not fall. People will move to the clean carbon economy. People will start to understand that it is in everyone's interests, and I will be very glad for it to be here. (Time expired)
If I were the Manager of Government Business, the last person I would put up to defend the carbon tax would be Senator Ursula Stephens. She is held in high regard on this side of parliament because we know she would not lie. You saw that today when she was trying to defend something that she did not have her heart in. She knows that the impact is going to be on the people that can least afford it. To ask Senator Stephens to get up and defend the carbon tax is picking the wrong horse for the wrong course.
But today I want to talk about the announcement about marine reserves, which will now circle right around Australia, creating 1.3 million square miles of marine parks—between 50 and 70 per cent of the world's marine parks around Australia. We are a country of 20 million people and we now have 70 per cent of the marine parks. How did we get there? We got there because Pew, an international green group, came here and decided to fund a campaign right across Australia, spending millions of dollars of American money, putting out propaganda that it would be good to have this wonderful world marine park—70 per cent of the world's marine parks.
But it is going to lock out commercial fishermen, it is going to lock out amateur fishermen. 'Oh, but Ron Boswell is a scare merchant.' They say it all the time. So today I quoted Mr Allan Hansard, who is the director of the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation. Mr Hansard says that mums, dads and the kids will be banned from trying to catch fish. It is not Ron Boswell who is saying that, it is the man who represents five million amateur fishermen. Mr Deputy President, you are a fisherman yourself and you know that the majority of the people who go out there in their 16-foot boats with their 60-horsepower motors are not office workers or solicitors or brain surgeons; they are blue-collar workers that rely on the Labor Party that has so badly let them down. When the Labor Party come to voting for the blue-collar worker, when they come to deciding whether to look after the blue-collar worker or the environmentalists and the soft green groups, it is the poor old blue-collar worker that always cops it in the neck.
They have copped it in the neck this time. They have had their fishing areas reduced. It is not Ron Boswell, it is not Barnaby Joyce, it is not Senator Brandis saying that; it is these guys that represent the recreational fishermen. Recreational anglers have been locked out of vast tracts of Australian ocean and a number of inshore iconic fishing spots such as Osprey Reef, Geographe Bay, the Perth trench and Dampier. What is the point of them saying it if it is not true? Why don't you listen to the blue-collar workers? Why have you let them down so badly time and time again? When Pew comes out here and tells the Greens what a wonderful idea it would be to take 70 per cent of the marine parks of the world and put them in Australian, locking out the commercial fishermen, locking out the amateur fishermen and locking out the charter boats that take fishing people out, why do you follow them? They lead you around by the nose and you do not ever learn. If you never learn you are always going to end up in the same spot. Why do you think the Queensland election was an absolute wipeout for the Labor Party? I will tell you why it was a wipeout. You could see, as you went out further into the working class areas, that the vote had left the Labor Party. I will tell you why. The blue-collar worker has worked out that the Greens-Labor alliance has nothing in it for them. It may look after the progressives of the Labor Party but it does not look after the blue-collar worker and they have worked it out. (Time expired)
Before I talk about the issue of carbon pricing, I would like to again echo the words of Senator Conroy in his response to the question on marine bioregions, and that is that the government is committed to delivering a national network of marine reserves, as we have indicated, to protect our marine environment for future generations. As Senator Conroy also said in question time today in relation to recreational fishing, these reserves will not impact recreational fishers, who love to fish, and they will preserve our marine life so that future generations can continue to enjoy this pastime. As someone who comes from a family that enjoys a spot of recreational fishing, I know there will be no impact on recreational fishers, as Senator Conroy has said today.
On the issue of carbon pricing, let us again be clear that a carbon price is the most effective and efficient way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That is what our clean energy future package will do. It will implement a carbon price that will cut carbon emissions and will also drive investment in clean technologies such as solar and wind. Our carbon price will ensure that big polluters pay the carbon price and not all ordinary Australians, as would happen under Mr Abbott's plan. The carbon price is about making the biggest polluters pay so that millions of Australians can pay less tax. The money raised from the carbon price will go to supporting jobs, encouraging investment in clean technologies and helping households. This is in stark contrast to Mr Abbott's plan, which would ensure that families are worse off. In fact, under Mr Abbott's plan, Australian families would have to pay more money in taxes and he would give that money to the big polluters. Mr Abbott is focused on mindless negativity and opposition. We have seen that here today in question time and again in Senator Mason's response in taking note. It was yet another attempt to scare people into believing falsehoods about the impact of the carbon price. We have had to deal with these falsehoods for the last 16 months. The prime speaker of these falsehoods is Mr Abbott himself and of course he is joined by his frontbench and also his backbench.
Just last week Mr Billson came across to Tasmania. We always like to see visitors to Tasmania. Currently, we have the Save a Mainlander tourism campaign, which Mr Deputy President Parry would know all about—that is, encouraging mainlanders to come to the most beautiful state in Australia. But I digress. Mr Billson came down to Tasmania, but unfortunately he talked about the carbon price and launched into his own scare campaign and repeated falsehoods that have been repeated again and again by Mr Abbott. For the last 16 to 18 months we have seen Mr Abbott telling small businesses that they will face extraordinary impacts, particularly electricity price rises of 25 to 30 per cent.
But Rod Sims of the ACCC came out and said that he could not see any circumstances where an average small business would have a carbon related price of anything like 25 per cent. He just does not see how that could be possible. Mr Abbott has been running around with many falsehoods. But just in the last few weeks we saw Mr Abbott changing his rhetoric a bit—although still on the biggest scare campaign that we have seen in this country for a very long time—from 'It's going to be a wrecking ball' to a slow— (Time expired)
It is quite interesting that Senator Carol Brown chose to speak on the topic of falsehoods. The largest falsehood of the lot is the slippery, slimy, shonky sideshow that we had over on the other side when asked for some truthful answers to some truthful questions. It is all razzamattaz—they are going to be the biggest and the best of everything: 'We're going to have the biggest carbon price.' I use the term 'carbon price'; I note that Senator Ludlam during question time referred to it as a 'carbon tax.' He clearly did not get the memo from his Labor coalition partners that they do not want to talk about a carbon tax anymore; they want to call it a price, because clearly a tax sounds like a much nastier thing than a carbon price. But whether it is a price or a tax it will, in the end, be paid by Australian consumers. It will be the biggest carbon tax in the world.
We also have the other big thing on offer from the Labor government—that is, the biggest national marine park in the world. Wow! Aren't they great at offering us big things. Of course, we have all these things courtesy of, apparently, the world's best Treasurer. Some of the other things that the Labor government are offering us include the biggest number of failures by construction companies—going into either liquidation or administration. The government are also very good at that. They have also given us the world's most unnecessary deficit. That has also been great. When you watch the world's best Treasurer Mr Swan primping and prancing around, excited at the GDP growth he has, it makes you very sick. He is using whatever he can of the mining resources to, once again, mask some of the other world-class problems we have in Australia—and they are that every industry that is not related to mining is in big trouble. You will have all noticed the retail sales going on. Senator Brandis mentioned the 1,900 jobs going from Fairfax. Reed Construction, St Hilliers and many other large construction companies are going into liquidation, courtesy of the government. Part of the whole package is the tsunami of great big taxes, great big problems that the government have brought on.
It was amusing to listen to Minister Carr. He was allegedly chiding the opposition when he said, 'It's easy to prescribe harsh medicine if you don't have to take it yourself.' Senator Carr needs to listen to what he said. That is what this government is doing; it is making industry sick and it is making consumers sick. And the whole country is going to be very sick. It tries to pretend, as it currently is, that there will not be a slow and long rise in the cost of living, which starts from 1 July, when its little package has already been rolled out—the $300 that is supposed to compensate. How long will it compensate for?
The government cannot even tell us what sort of emissions reduction they are expecting to get by 2020. Bizarrely, Senator Wong claims that we cannot really expect her to give us an annual year by year estimate. How does she know we are going to get to a five per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 if she cannot tell us how much we are likely to have per year or what we are going to average per year? How on earth could she possibly know?
How on earth can Senator Conroy say that there will be no damage done to the recreational and commercial fishers of Australia, when he has not consulted with them in any way on this matter, except to announce, 'Whoopee, once again, we've got the world's biggest whatever it is'—but at what cost to Australian industry and at what cost to Australian consumers? But of course the government do not take the medicine; they just dish it out.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to fossil fuel subsidies.
I remind the Senate that at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in 2009 the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, agreed to 'phase out and rationalise' inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. At that time in Australia Treasury had identified 17 such subsidies that existed and there was then a move to determine what Australia was actually going to do consistent with that undertaking the Prime Minister had made to President Obama and others at the G20 meeting.
In the time since that meeting at Pittsburgh in 2009 we have seen very little movement in Australia in phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. What we have seen, however, is a redefinition of what constitutes a fossil fuel subsidy, so, whereas 17 of them were identified by Treasury in 2009, the redefinition suddenly meant that they evaporated, that Australia did not have inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Of course, the weasel words there are 'inefficient'. So how can you have an efficient fossil fuel subsidy at a time when fossil fuels are the reason that we have accelerating global warming? How sensible is it, on the one hand, to introduce carbon pricing in order to bring down the fossil fuel emissions driving accelerated global warming and, on the other hand, to maintain fossil fuel subsidies? The fossil fuel subsidies in Australia have recently been assessed by the Global Subsidies Initiative report saying that they currently are at $7.2 billion a year in Australia. We are subsidising fossil fuels at the same time that we are introducing carbon pricing to bring down fossil fuel emissions. It makes no sense.
We now have the Prime Minister in Mexico for the G20 meeting and no doubt there will be discussions there not only with her colleagues at the G20 but with the International Energy Agency, the OECD and the World Bank, which are all out there basically saying, 'One thing that we have to do is sever the link between economic growth and the consumption of scarce resources because otherwise we will see not only our resource base but also our governance and policy structures unable to sustain the standard of living societies have grown accustomed to and aspire to.' So what is Prime Minister Gillard going to tell the G20 about how Australia is decoupling business and economic growth from resource intensive environmental impact? It seems to me that, instead of actually severing that link to economic growth that is driving those adverse environmental impacts, Australia is actually cementing the link with this massive expansion of coal and this massive expansion of coal seam gas and the destruction of the environment in the Great Barrier Reef, the World Heritage area, as a result of dredging in Gladstone harbour and the dumping of spoil into the Great Barrier Reef area.
Of course, now we have had the announcement of a national network of marine parks around Australia, something for which we have campaigned for years, but what do we find? We find that the marine park boundaries, particularly on the Kimberley Coast in the Pilbara and even at Ningaloo, have been compromised by oil and gas. So not only do we have actual financial subsidies for accelerated depreciation, for exploration and for fuel tax credits but now we are also subsidising them with our environment. We are actually risking the World Heritage endangered listing of the Great Barrier Reef and we are risking permanent damage to it and we are risking losing substantial parts of our marine environment. Many of the reefs have not been put into the marine parks because of oil and gas. So I think Australia needs to get very serious about this and recognise that we have a totally inconsistent approach at the moment. If you are serious about climate change and if you are serious about getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies, it means you then have the money to invest in education and training and to invest in the new low-to-zero carbon economy that is essential if we are going to sustain ourselves as a planetary community in this century. That is what it comes down to: sustainability. Sustainability and fossil fuel subsidies are in direct conflict.
Question agreed to.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 12 June this year, of the Hon. Francis John Walker, QC, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Robertson, New South Wales, from 1990 until 1996. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 12 March 2012, of the Honourable Francis John Walker, QC, former minister and member for Robertson, and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
It is my privilege today to lead this condolence motion to mark the very significant contribution of our Labor colleague who served as a senior minister at both the state and federal level. Frank Walker was a member of the Australian House of Representatives for nearly six years, from 1990 to 1996, and was a minister in the Keating government. I had the honour of serving with him in the last three-year period of the Keating government and was always very impressed by his ability and his passion for the labour cause and for social justice. He was a very impressive contributor to the Labor caucus and to the ministry of that time. Prior to entering federal politics Frank served in Neville Wran's government and made history as the state of New South Wales' youngest Attorney-General and as the first minister in New South Wales to hold the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. His contribution to public life was remarkable and spanned more than four decades. He was a determined and fearless campaigner with strong convictions whose reputation as a reformer and a passionate advocate for the underdog was well known. The unorthodox upbringing that coloured Frank's early years was perhaps less well known. The first born of two sons, Frank was born on 7 July 1942 in Sydney. The family lived in a Housing Commission home in Coogee until 1948, when they were forced to move overseas because Frank's father, a member of the Communist Party of Australia, was blacklisted and unable to work in Australia. Frank and his brother spent their formative years in Papua New Guinea, living and learning alongside indigenous children in coastal villages while their father supported the family, salvaging and melting metals and alloys from World War II aircraft he found in the surrounding jungle. The boys were raised as Catholic. While their mother took care of their religious upbringing, their father taught them how to read and also broadened their education to include the world of politics.
Frank was 12 when the family returned to Australia and settled on the New South Wales mid-North coast. It was here, in 1950s Australia, at the age of 13, that he staged his first political act. He sat with segregated Aboriginals at the Sawtell picture theatre, in the process drawing the attention of the local constabulary and making himself an outcast in the community.
He attended Coffs Harbour High School before studying law part time at the University of Sydney. He completed a law degree in 1964 and a Master of Laws in 1969. He married his first wife, Marilyn Duff, an accountant, in 1963, and the marriage ended in 1992. Through his university years, Frank continued to speak out against racial segregation. He joined Charles Perkins on the Freedom Ride to Moree in 1965 and five years later was propelled into politics on the back of his engagement in Indigenous issues. He was an articled clerk from 1960 to 1965, a solicitor from 1965 to 1976, a barrister from 1976 to 1988 and appointed as Queen's Counsel in 1981.
Frank joined the Australian Labor Party in 1960 at 18 years of age and held various branch and electorate positions, including as president of the Canterbury-Bankstown and Barton Young Labor associations. Frank was a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly for nearly 18 years from 1970 to 1988 and was quick to carve out a career as a vocal backbencher. As the member for Georges River during the Wran and Unsworth New South Wales state governments, he held several key ministerial positions. At 34 years of age, as I said earlier, he was the youngest person to be appointed as the New South Wales Attorney-General, a position he held for seven years. He was also Minister for Youth and Community Services, Minister for Justice, Minister for Housing, Minister for the Arts and the first New South Wales minister appointed to the new ministry of Aboriginal affairs.
Following that long state career, Frank entered federal politics in 1990. In March 1993 he became both Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council. He was promoted to Minister for Administrative Services in March 1994, a position that he held until the 1996 federal election. Frank Walker was an active participant in the affairs of the parliament. He attended the 85th Inter-Parliamentary Conference in the Republic of Korea in 1991 and undertook official visits to Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the United States. He served on a number of committees.
In 1996 he married Pamela Buchanan, a public servant. After politics, Frank continued a distinguished career by serving as a judge on the Compensation Court of New South Wales from 1997 to 2003, and from 2004 to 2006 he was a judge of the Dust Diseases Tribunal and of the District Court of New South Wales.
Having had two sons who suffered from schizophrenia, Frank had a long association with the Schizophrenia Fellowship of New South Wales and served as president of the fellowship from 1998. Sadly, Frank's two sons, Michael and Sean, took their own lives within two years of each other. Frank stepped down last December from his role as President of the Schizophrenia Fellowship but remained a member of the fellowship until his death. I met with Frank last November when he wanted to speak to me about issues of disability employment and mental health. He retained a very strong commitment to assisting people with mental health issues in seeking employment and broader support. He brought a passion to that subject even in his last days.
From the time Frank joined the Labor Party at age 18, he worked tirelessly for those who struggled, whether in the early movements in support of Indigenous rights, in the cause for law reform or in promoting housing and social justice. On top of this, he was a leader who worked to support people with mental illness. His own battle with cancer saw his passing on 12 June this year. He is a great loss to the Australian Labor Party but had a remarkable Labor career. On behalf of the government, I offer my condolences to his wife, Pamela, his family and his friends.
The coalition joins with the Leader of the Government in the Senate in supporting the condolence motion for the Hon. Francis Walker QC. His was a life devoted to public service, with 18 years in the state parliament and six years in the federal parliament, and he served as a minister in both jurisdictions.
After his parliamentary life he became a judge and involved himself in issues of mental health after his departure from representative public service. I will briefly quote from a foreword that the Hon. Frank Walker QC wrote for a publication by the Mental Illness Fellowship of Australia. He said:
Life is full of turning points and I have experienced a few of them personally and politically.
One of the very special turning points is the birth of a child, a child of your very own to nurture and love. Here is the future so full of promise and possibility.
For some, another turning point comes when you are told that your child has a mental illness. This can be a place of fear, uncertainty and confusion. It can be the beginning of a long and difficult journey for both you as a parent and your child. Yet there is and should be hope. All mental illnesses are treatable.
The Hon. Frank Walker QC was well able to speak personally and with great authority because of the personal tragedies that he confronted and that the Leader of the Government referred to in his contribution. It is often forgotten that those in public life also have personal and private lives and there is no doubt that the Hon. Frank Walker was greatly impacted by the issues faced by his two sons. I am sure that Senator Faulkner will provide a longer and more personal account of the life and times of the Hon. Francis Walker QC, who can be rightly seen as a Labor luminary. The coalition simply yet sincerely salutes the Hon. Francis Walker QC's contribution to public life. We extend our condolences to his widow Pam, extended family and friends within the Labor movement.
On behalf of the Australian Greens I extend our condolences to Frank Walker's family and colleagues. I learnt much about Frank's life from the speakers we just heard and I would like to add a few of my own reflections. Frank's public life was very much about people and about righting wrongs, no matter how entrenched they had become in our society. He took on many of the tough issues. In the 1970s, when the people of New South Wales started to become acquainted with Frank Walker as the Attorney-General in Neville Wran's government, Australia was just emerging from a time of stultifying conservatism. New South Wales needed Frank Walker's vision and commitment. Frank worked to ensure all people had dignity in their day-to-day lives.
A standout in Frank's work was that he successfully repealed offensive discriminatory laws. The Summary Offences Act for too long had allowed New South Wales police to legally abuse the disadvantaged and homeless in New South Wales. Frank moved quickly to repeal this law. I had the opportunity to witness these developments at close quarters as a member of the New South Wales Women's Advisory Council in the early 1980s. We worked with the Attorney-General, Mr Walker, closely on what were then called the rape laws. The issues we grappled with were sensitive and challenging. Frank's understanding of women's rights informed his excellent advice which contributed to the new sexual laws Jocelynne Scutt and others worked so hard to achieve. Entrenched discrimination was the only casualty when Frank took this work on.
Frank Walker also brought law reform to what was then a largely hidden issue—domestic violence. The Attorney-General introduced provocation into murder trials. While this may be controversial in some circles to this day, Frank Walker's work brought immediate relief in some individual cases and greater understanding to the plight of the victims of domestic violence. The case of Bruce and Violet Roberts, who had been convicted of murder, was the catalyst for Frank's groundbreaking work in this area. Bruce and Violet had suffered years of abuse from their father and husband, but the defence of provocation was not available. They were found guilty and jailed. Frank changed the law so the victims of domestic violence in such tragic situations could use provocation as part of their defence.
With such an active and fruitful life we need to be wary of nominating Frank's most significant achievements, but his work for state-based land rights legislation, a first in any state in Australia, would have to vie for that top spot. Frank continued his work for the disadvantaged and Labor causes when he was elected to the House of Representatives. I do note that there were times when Frank suffered because of the stand he had taken. Disgruntled police officers, annoyed with the end of the Summary Offences Act, and some corporate interests gave him a hard time, but Frank always bounced back. Frank pursued a career that did bring him public standing, but it was always in the context of serving others. We saw this commitment continue when Frank left parliament, after losing his seat at the 1996 election. He then threw himself into working on compensation rights and schizophrenia issues. The Australian Greens recognise Frank Walker's contribution to Australian public life. It is fairer and more decent for his actions. His loved ones—Pamela, family and friends—can feel very proud of Frank's life.
I rise to associate myself with the comments that have been made about the life and times of the Hon. Frank Walker QC. I would also like to recognise the contribution to progressive politics and the law that Frank Walker has made over many years and express my condolences to his wife Pamela, family and friends. I first met Frank at a Wran community cabinet at Muswellbrook, when I was a delegate at Liddell power station. Frank was in Muswellbrook for a cabinet meeting with Labor luminaries like Neville Wran, Jack Ferguson and Bob Debus. I found Frank from day one to be extremely confident, competent and an impressive politician and person. He was an engaging and effective communicator.
The important thing about Frank was his vision for social justice. He was a leading advocate for civil rights, and Bob Debus recently described him as 'one of the great civil libertarians of our time' in New South Wales with reforms to the criminal law, reforms to child welfare, reforms to anti-discrimination legislation and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. Dealing with issues of poverty and discrimination were some of the keynote issues that Frank Walker dealt with during his illustrious political career. He also, as has been indicated, pioneered rights for victims of domestic violence. As Attorney-General, Frank was targeted by corrupt police; he was subject to bomb threats; and there were attempts to smear and frame him in relation to the Nugan Hand bank. But he came through all of that and continued to participate in progressive political agendas until his death. The Dust Diseases Tribunal was an area that he as a judge would have found extremely interesting and important. Looking after workers who had been smitten by asbestos related diseases was extremely important for Frank, and I could not think of a better job or a better person to help victims of this disease than Frank Walker. He then became a District Court judge and an eminent jurist, and as always brought that great energy, confidence and competence to that position.
Frank Walker will be missed by the Labor Party. He will be missed by the progressive side of politics in this country. Forty years of fighting for the underdog with courage and determination marks the life of Frank Walker. I again offer my condolences to his family and friends.
Frank Walker was an unforgettable and inescapable feature of the New South Wales Labor landscape for those of us whose political involvement began in the 1970s. He was widely known in the party as a prominent left winger whose youth and energy were a real contribution to the Wran government's air of freshness; whose advocacy of the causes of environmental protection, civil liberties and Indigenous rights appealed to the growing community concern of the time on those issues; whose enthusiastic reform agenda changed much about the state of New South Wales and whose skill and drive as a campaigner shored up marginal seats at a state and federal level. Frank was driven by his ideals—ideals first shaped in childhood by watching his father hold steadfastly to his political convictions, no matter the cost. He found his home in the left wing of the Australian Labor Party, where he found people who shared a commitment to the causes he cared about.
Since his death, Frank has frequently been described as a factional warrior, closely involved in the internal struggles of his party and his faction no matter where he was—from state backbencher to federal minister. Internal politics in New South Wales Labor was played hard. Frank Walker fought hard to promote the values and causes important to him and to protect his interests and the interests of those close to him—as did we all. More than once Frank challenged the leadership of the Left in New South Wales. In 1971, as a member of a small dissident left factional grouping, he nominated against Arthur Gietzelt for the then federal executive of the ALP. In the early 1980s he moved to formalise the Left in the New South Wales state parliamentary Labor Party where the Labor Right had a natural majority. In the late 1980s he was instrumental in the New South Wales left faction, the old Combined Unions' and Branches' Steering Committee, rebadging itself as the Socialist Left. And in 1993 he was suspended from the Left for 12 months after nominating against the Left's ticket for the first Keating ministry—and winning.
It was not always so. Many of Frank's interventions in internal party matters did not end in triumph. Whether in the party or in the public arena, Frank Walker played his politics hard. He played to win and he did have wins to his name as well as losses. At the end of his career he could point to a long list of significant legislative achievements, from the repeal of the Summary Offences Act, as Neville Wran's Attorney General at the beginning of his ministerial career, to his groundbreaking work on implementing Mabo. Repealing then Liberal Party Premier Askin's 1970 Summary Offences Act—the act that made it literally a crime to be poor, to have less than $15 in your pocket, the act that made it a crime for two or more people to assemble without the authorisation of the Commissioner of Police—earned him the hostility of the New South Wales Police Force. His work on native title, in the Keating government, earned him the hostility of Liberal state premiers and plenty of mining magnates. I think he would have seen both as a sign that he was doing his job.
Frank was considered by many to be abrasive and combative. The stories of many of his successes are inevitably the stories of triumph over the implacable opposition of enemies, some within his own faction, in part because Frank did have a knack of making enemies. He pursued his goals single-mindedly. The dedication that made him an excellent campaigner in a preselection or a marginal seat led to more than a few ruffled feathers among those who dealt with him. But he would not be swayed from what he thought was the right course of action—not by threats, not by hostility, and not, as I found on the odd occasion, by persuasion or logic either. But none of us in the Labor Party should ever forget Frank's heroic by-election victory in 1970. The seat of Georges River had been a safe Liberal seat where the ALP was given virtually no chance of winning. Frank's victory changed politics in New South Wales. He was a breath of fresh air. He knew it was a very difficult seat to hold.
Frank gave a lot of attention to why Labor continually lost postal votes in election after election, state and federal. He broke new ground for the Labor Party by developing a postal vote register. This might not seem like much now but at the time it was revolutionary. It transformed Labor's performance in campaigning and postal voting. He and his campaign team would keep a record of those who had asked to be assisted with postal voting, for whatever reason, be they ill, infirm, disabled, housebound, travelling or overseas. And those electors did not have to ask for a postal vote application again; Frank's campaign team would always offer the service and the service was appreciated.
In 1976, when Labor won the seats of Gosford and Hurstville by literally just a handful of votes—and hence the 1976 state election which installed Neville Wran as premier—the postal vote campaign techniques that Frank developed made the difference. Labor would not have won the 1976 New South Wales state election without the campaign techniques developed by Frank Walker. Before Frank Walker, Labor lost the close results; after Frank Walker, Labor won the close ones. This will always be a lasting legacy.
Frank and I were not close, but we did have a cordial and professional relationship. We served together in the Keating ministry from 1993 to 1996. But I will never forget one great act of solidarity from Frank. In 1981, when I was persona non grata and sent to Coventry as the then left wing Assistant General Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the ALP, I was uninvited to the head office staff Christmas party. In fact, I was not invited to anything. So the leadership of the Left at the time held its own Christmas party for me—in my office! The then New South Wales Attorney-General, Minister of Justice and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Frank Walker, arrived in my office at Sussex Street with his Christmas present—a New South Wales branch ALP rule book with every page blank because, as Frank's annotation read, the Sussex Street machine just ignored the party rules anyway! I appreciated his gift and his solidarity, and I have lodged Frank's Christmas present in the National Archives of Australia.
Frank Walker carried a terrible burden with his tragic family circumstances and, typically, was driven by his own tragedy to fight to make the circumstances of others better. His work as the Vice-President of the Mental Illness Fellowship of Australia, the Deputy President of the New South Wales Mental Health Review Tribunal and the President of the Schizophrenia Fellowship of New South Wales was characterised by the same determination and dedication that he had brought to the state and federal parliaments. He remained, to the end of his life, in his own words, 'committed to democracy, human rights, civil liberties and a tolerant and inclusive society'. And he continued to work until the end of his life for those causes. I join with other senators in extending my sincere sympathy to Frank's family and friends.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
I move:
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 21 June 2012 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills:
No. 86 Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill 2012 [No. 2]
No. 84 Assisting Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2012.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That government business be interrupted at 7.30 pm to allow consideration of government business orders of the day listed at item No. 21 on today's Order of Business.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 18 June to 22 June 2012:
(a) Senator Bob Carr on account of parliamentary business; and
(b) Senator Xenophon for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 18 June to 22 June 2012:
(a) Senator Siewert for personal reasons; and
(b) Senator Waters on account of parliamentary business.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Fisher for 18 and 19 June 2012, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the time for the presentation of reports of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be extended as follows:
(a) Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill 2012 and the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill 2012––to 13 July 2012;
(b) Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012––to 19 June 2012; and
(c) Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2012––to 19 June 2012.
Question agreed to.
by leave—On behalf of Senator Sterle, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 be extended to 25 June 2012.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the following matter be referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 October 2012:
The effect of importing fresh pineapples from Malaysia on Australian pineapple growers, including:
(a) the scientific basis on which the provisional final import risk analysis report regarding the importation of fresh, decrowned pineapples from Malaysia has been developed;
(b) the risks and consequences of the importation resulting in the introduction of pest species;
(c) the adequacy of the quarantine conditions recommended by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; and
(d) any other related matter.
At the request of Senator Abetz, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Fair Work Australia’s investigation into the Health Services Union and the Member for Dobell (Mr Thomson) has taken an unreasonably long time,
(ii) the Member for Dobell expected Fair Work Australia to conduct its investigation within 6 months,
(iii) Australians have lost faith in Fair Work Australia to conduct itself in a quick and proper manner,
(iv) under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, enacted by the then Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (Ms Gillard), the provisions for accountability and transparency are far less than the standard expected of company directors, and
(v) the Coalition has a plan for better accountability and transparency for registered organisations; and
(b) calls on the Government to adopt the Coalition’s plan for better accountability and transparency for registered organisations.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) said in the 2010 election campaign that achieving harmonised occupational health and safety laws was her greatest achievement, and
(ii) harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws has not taken place; and
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to advise the Australian people, in light of this, if the carbon tax is now her greatest achievement.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Back be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the World Health Organization estimates there are 9 300 new cases of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Burma each year, yet only around 300 people are currently receiving treatment,
(ii) Burma has some of the lowest coverage rates for anti-retroviral treatment in the world, yet anticipated funds from the Global Fund's round 11 that would have paid for 46 500 additional patients on anti-retroviral treatment, helping to bring total coverage to close to 100 000 people by 2018, has been cancelled, leaving tens of thousands of lives hanging in the balance, and
(iii) Australia is a generous donor to Burma, yet very little overseas development aid funding is currently available for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis treatment; and
(b) calls on the Government to urgently prioritise HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis treatment in its aid program to Burma by:
(i) increasing both bilateral and multilateral aid funding for HIV and tuberculosis treatment programs in Burma,
(ii) providing additional emergency funding for the Global Fund in 2012 and actively encouraging other donors to do the same, and
(iii) supporting the Government of Burma in taking the necessary steps to facilitate the planned scale-up of HIV and tuberculosis treatment.
Question negatived.
A letter has been received from Senator Fifield:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Government's determination to exacerbate cost of living pressures for Australian households through the introduction of the world's biggest carbon tax on 1 July
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
In speaking to this motion on the government's determination to exacerbate cost-of-living pressures for Australian households through the introduction of the world's biggest carbon tax on 1 July, there are a number of points that I think are well worth making. I will start by referring to an old political aphorism that would be known to those who have been hanging around the game of politics for some time. It is about what politicians usually need to do to get a message out—that is, talk to the people. It is along the lines of: just when you become bored with saying it, they probably have not even started listening so you should keep saying it. Those of us who have worked in campaigns over many years would have heard this, used it and hopefully listened to it.
What is intriguing in this instance is that we have to reverse it. We have a government that is not listening to what the people are saying, even though the people keep repeating the message that they do not like the carbon tax and they do not want it to be introduced. It seems to me that, although people are probably quite bored with saying it—but they will keep on, I suspect—the government simply is not listening to them So even the aphorism in reverse is not working for this government.
It does not matter where you are in Australia, what you are doing or what you are engaged in: in the forums that members of the coalition have been holding all over the country to discuss issues that are predicated on the carbon tax, people are raising their concerns about it before the member raises the subject. It is raised when you are in shopping centres. In fact, the piece de resistance was someone raising concerns about the carbon tax with me last week while I was at the State of Origin football game at ANZ Stadium in New South Wales. I was proudly wearing blue for the Blues—who, I might note for the record, won. A gentleman sitting a couple of rows in front of me and my Queensland colleague Senator Barnaby Joyce made his views very clearly known. As a political representative you cannot go anywhere in this country without being stopped to hear concerns about the carbon tax raised with you.
In regard to exacerbating the pain that Australian households are feeling, this government is going to win a gold medal. You would have thought that they had already caused enough pain with their particular spending habits, but, no, Australian families will be hit again on 1 July.
The Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet can try to use nice, benign language like 'putting a price on carbon', but let us not make any error about this. This carbon tax is going to hit the hip pockets of all Australians. It will affect the price of everything, and many Australians are very concerned about its impact. It does not matter whether we are speaking about housing, electricity, health, education or something as simple as council rates. Every time Australians open their mail at the moment there is a new piece of correspondence from a utility company or from their local council or from another agency in their community saying, 'As of 1 July we will be forced to pursue a price rise.' It makes for sad and sorry reading at the end of a busy working day. It will penalise, for example, in one of my shadow portfolio areas, new-home builders, for cutting emissions by building homes that are more energy efficient than existing homes—because, frankly, the carbon tax will increase the cost of building the average new home by $5,200, even after compensation, according to the estimates of the Housing Industry Association. And the Housing Industry Association have been at great pains, and gone to great lengths, to raise their concerns with government representatives and within the community as to the impact that this will have on new home construction in this country. New-home builders already have to comply with state based energy efficiency schemes, so how on earth will penalising builders of energy-efficient homes save the environment and reduce the national housing shortage that has increased to 228,000 homes, as at 1 July, according to the latest National Housing Supply Council key indicators 2012 report? The answer is pretty simple: it won't. And those numbers are not getting any better. We waited a very long time for the National Housing Supply Council to be reconstituted by this government, all the while concerned about where the figures were going in relation to the building of new homes vis-a-vis the demand. What is clear to us is that increasing the cost of building new homes is only going to impact even more negatively on those figures.
We have subcontractors all over Australia, in all aspects of the construction industry, who are very concerned about actually losing their own businesses, about being driven to the wall. Independent subbies do not receive any compensation for the increased costs that are going to result from the carbon tax. The scarcity of subcontractors is already a challenge for home builders—and, as they become more scarce, it will increase the cost for home builders. In growing parts of Australia, particularly like Western Sydney, where many areas are being opened up for development, this is a very significant challenge. But what about the challenge it presents to the subcontractors themselves, to their families and to their businesses? It appears to be something that the government has absolutely no regard for.
So building is discouraged through higher costs. We have a carbon tax coming in on 1 July which will only exacerbate the housing shortage and hurt even tenants, who are already facing rents that are rising well above inflation. That puts very significant pressure on marginal renters on low incomes, on those in accommodation like caravan parks, and increases the pressure on homelessness services. Those of us who have, in our own capital cities and communities, seen the recent business and CEO sleep-outs that either have happened or are going to happen, will know only too clearly how difficult that environment is.
The cash handouts that are supposed to compensate for this tax are not going to fool homeowners, they are not going to fool investors, and frankly they are not going to fool poor tenants who are struggling on a daily basis. We are seeing the government insulting the intelligence of the Australian community by trying to make a calculation of how much better off or worse off individuals will be, but the thing that we do know for certain is that, no matter what the calculations are, the carbon tax will keep prices and costs going up. It will cause electricity prices to skyrocket. In my own area of Western Sydney, IPART in New South Wales has indicated that electricity prices will increase by 11.8 per cent by 1 July. There is not a single household or a single small business that will not be impacted by those rises. They will be paying on average an extra $208 a year in electricity prices for households and an extra $270 a year for businesses.
I talk to people, as I know all my colleagues do, who are struggling to meet their staff payments, let alone their rental payments, let alone their utilities payments, and struggling to keep Australians employed. How they are expected to continue to do that after 1 July is probably the greatest mystery of 2012 at this point. We have increases in gas bills, and we will find ourselves paying the world's highest electricity prices for the world's largest carbon tax, and the government will not even tell us what it will do for the environment ultimately.
The happy reminder—and I use the word 'happy' with great irony—is that, every time families turn on the light switch, they will be asking, 'How can I afford to pay this bill?' And in some cases they are not turning on the light switches or the heating, in parts of Australia that are very cold and very lonely places if you are fighting these sorts of challenges.
Our message is that there is absolutely nothing right about this carbon tax and the electricity price increases it will cause—for example, talk to a local hospital. I noticed that recently in Sydney the Daily Telegraph ran a few headlines, 'Even schools and hospitals feel the carbon tax' and 'Carbon tax bill $46 million for hospitals and schools'. I was at Westmead hospital last October, with the shadow minister for health, the Hon. Peter Dutton, a member of the other place, talking to locals about the impact on that hospital—which, based on the assessments that they have made, could face up to $728,000 a year in electricity costs, putting extra burdens on local suppliers. It is inconceivable that a hospital struggling to meet its budgets now has to be asked to re-manage its allocations to incorporate those sorts of costs. Think about the number of staff they could have on the floor for that. Think about the sorts of impacts it is having on local families. Think about the communities that are looking at this challenge from 1 July, looking at the impact it will have on their lives, on their children, on their aged parents—on whatever part of the community you care to look at. You hear it every single day. (Time expired)
Here we have it again: yet another piece of misinformation, another missive from the Orwellian motion-writing department of the Liberal Party of Australia. In that great tradition of anti-reform, anti-change, do-nothing conservatives, here they are again, dishing up in the Senate the same old scaremongering, the same old attempts to terrify the Australian public into believing their scare campaign around the important public initiative of pricing carbon in our economy. Those on that side are well and truly glass-half-empty people—to borrow a phrase used by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens last week—because here they go again with their scare campaign around the important policy of pricing carbon.
Let us get to a few of the facts about carbon pricing in Australia. The first fact is that both the coalition and the Labor Party have the same target for emission reductions in our economy: five per cent by 2020. We have the exact same target. With that in mind, the question then becomes: what is the most efficient, effective and, importantly, the cheapest way of reducing emissions in our economy over time? There has been a lot work undertaken to answer this question. In fact, no fewer than 37 parliamentary inquiries on that question have been undertaken in this place since 1992. They include the Shergold report, which was established by none other than former Prime Minister John Howard. John Howard asked Professor Shergold to inquire into that exact question—the most efficient and effective and the cheapest way of reducing carbon emissions in the Australian economy. All 37 of them, including the Shergold review, recommend a market based mechanism as being the cheapest, most efficient and effective method of reducing emissions in our economy—the same scheme that Labor is implementing with its clean energy future package.
Another fact is that not all Australians will directly pay the carbon price. The 500 biggest polluting companies in our economy will bear the direct liability for paying a cost associated with their carbon emissions. Initially, it will be $23 per tonne before we move to a market or floating price in three years time. There will be indirect costs; we know that. We have been upfront with the Australian people about that. Some of the 500 biggest companies will pass on their costs and that will result in an increase in electricity costs and other expenses for households and small businesses. But what we have done is asked the Treasury to undertake a modelling exercise to estimate what those costs will be for families and for small businesses in our economy—and they have done exactly that. It is the biggest economic modelling exercise in this country's history. It is even bigger than the GST modelling that was undertaken in 1998.
Let us put this into context. The GST was modelled by the same people in Treasury in 1998. They said that the price effect from the introduction of the goods and services tax would be 2.49 per cent on the consumer price index—in other words, prices in our economy would rise by 2.49 per cent. Guess what the figure came in at when the GST was introduced? The price effect, the CPI, rose by 2.5 per cent. They were spot on then and they will be spot on now. What they have said this time, after undertaking the modelling, is that the price effect of the government's clean energy future package will be 0.7 of one per cent on the consumer price index—in other words, prices will rise by less than one per cent. That is one fifth of the effect of the goods and services tax when it was introduced in 1998.
Another fact is that if companies try to price gouge, if they do try to increase prices, we have given additional powers to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate and prosecute those organisations. Let me tell you: it is working. I had a mate of mine who works for a construction company ring me a few weeks ago. He said, 'Mate, this doesn't sound right. A contractor that we use has attempted to push their prices up and to use the carbon price as an excuse.' I said to him, 'Mate, go back and ask them to put it in writing and tell them that, if they are not comfortable with it, you will refer them to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and get them to check whether or not this particular company is taking the mickey, so to speak.' He did that. He rang back a couple of days later and said, 'You know what, mate, thanks for that advice because it worked. They've changed their tune. They wouldn't put it in writing and they've reduced their prices.' They know that they will be prosecuted if they seek to price gouge under the new scheme.
We know that there will be price effects, but we believe that the economic decision that is being made by this country is in the best interests of our country. We are transitioning from an industrial economy to a clean energy future. It is the equivalent of the economic transformation that occurred in our economy over 100 years ago, when we moved from an agricultural society to an industrial society. During that period it was a difficult transition, but we supported families and we got through it. In the end, it was better for our economy. It resulted in changes in capital flows and it also resulted in increased investment in new technology, new industries, jobs growth and wealth creation for this country. We are about to enter the next phase of our economic development and again there will be new investment, research and development, jobs growths and growth for our economy.
We are providing assistance to households to make the transition. This is what peeves me about the opposition's motion. We are doing all we can to support households and families with cost-of-living pressures. There are elements of the household assistance package which support most Australian households in this country. If you are a single pensioner, you will get a $250 increase in your pension on an annual basis. There will be $380 for couples to help them make the transition to a clean energy future. If you are a student, you will get $190 per year in assistance to help you make the transition to a clean energy future. If you are a job seeker, you will get $180 as a single and $300 as a couple in assistance from the government to help you meet those cost-of-living pressures. We are providing tax cuts for most Australians. Anyone who is earning less than $80,000 a year will get on average a $300 a year tax cut. We are tripling the tax free threshold from $6,000 to $18,000 to ensure that it is a massive tax break for low-income people in this country. In the recent budget, we announced a schoolkids bonus because we understand the cost-of-living pressures that families are facing with sending kids to school—the cost of school uniforms, shoes, books, bags and all those sorts of things. There is $410 for each primary school student and $820 for each high school student. This is support for families in their bank accounts to help them meet these cost-of-living pressures. We are increasing the family tax benefit, up to an extra $600 for families under this government to provide support to help meet cost-of-living pressures.
We live in the real world. We know that people are facing cost-of-living pressures associated with increasing electricity and gas prices, but people have to be conscious—and this is why the opposition's motion is a complete fabrication—that the carbon price has not started yet. You cannot possibly blame the carbon price for the increases in electricity costs which have been imposed on families to date. We all know that the reality behind increases in electricity costs is state governments upgrading the network infrastructure, particularly the high-voltage transmission wires that transport electricity from a power station to a substation in the local area. These wires have been upgraded in New South Wales. State governments have undertaken the process of upgrading the network and there have been quite high increases in electricity costs associated with that.
In New South Wales over the last 12 months there has been an 18 per cent increase in electricity costs, all due to network upgrades. If you read the decisions of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, IPART, they point to the fact that network upgrades have been associated with increasing costs. In the coming year there will be a 20 per cent increase in electricity prices in New South Wales. Some of that is because of the carbon price but, guess what? We said that the cost effect would be 10 per cent. We were upfront with the Australian people: a 10 per cent increase in electricity costs because of the carbon price. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal confirmed the Treasury's figures. In their most recent decision to increase electricity prices by 20 per cent they admitted that the cost of the carbon price will be 10 per cent or lower, not greater, consistent with the Treasury modelling. Yet here we have the opposition again coming into this place trying to blame the carbon price solely for increases in electricity costs. Most increases have been due to network upgrades undertaken by state governments.
What has been the response of the New South Wales state government? Bear in mind what I said earlier about the fact that the federal government is conscious that there are cost pressures associated with electricity and gas prices. Our response in the recent federal budget was to introduce a supplementary payment to assist families to meet costs associated with electricity and gas prices. It is $210 for singles and $350 for couples, to help them meet increasing electricity prices. Compare that to the New South Wales Liberal government. Its response to electricity price increases, solely the result of network upgrades undertaken by that particular government, has been a $75 rebate—a measly $75 announced in their recent budget, compared to $350 support from the Australian government. That is a stark reminder of the difference between our parties when it comes to supporting families with meeting cost-of-living pressures in our economy.
What is the response of those opposite to some of these issues? How are they going to support families into the future? The answer is simple: we do not know. The Australian public would not have a clue, because those opposite will not announce any of their policies; they will not come clean with the Australian public about what plans and services they intend to cut. As usual, we have had some leaks from those opposite, from their shadow cabinet. They indicate that those opposite are planning $70 billion worth of cuts to services when they come to government. That will be their welcome present to the Australian public if they get elected in this country—$70 billion worth of cuts to services.
What will those cuts to services do to cost-of-living pressures and support for households and families? When we came to government we increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent—a great support for families to help meet the cost of sending small kids to childcare and getting an important start on education. Is that on the chopping block? Who knows? It possibly is. Medicare, support for universal health care, something that families rely on to ensure they make ends meet, is that on the chopping block? Perhaps it is. They will not tell us. We have programmed increases in the pension. During the 11 years of the Howard government they did not increase the pension once but since we have come to government we have done it twice. What is the prospect for increases for pensioners? We have already seen Joe Hockey begin to back away from the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which will provide a lot of support for people who are living with disabilities and their carers to meet their cost-of-living pressures. (Time expired)
In supporting this matter of public importance I want to begin by looking at where the government is on this. This Australian Labor Party, with its long history, is travelling with a primary vote of less than 30 per cent. In Western Australia it is about 26 per cent and I think it is about 25 or 26 per cent in Queensland. Why is that? Many Labor senators say it is because the coalition is running a scare campaign. It is pretty scary when you are confronting a cold, hungry, penniless winter, when you cannot afford electricity, you cannot afford to travel, you cannot afford water. In Western Australia the biggest on-grid user of electricity is the Water Corporation. It is pretty scary. Yet I hear senators on the other side say, 'The government's been upfront with the Australian people.' When was it upfront? 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'—that is very upfront. The Treasurer, 'This is a hysterical allegation.' That is right upfront. This crazy government is embarking upon economic suicide for this country.
They will not mention this tax, they dare not mention its name: the carbon tax, putting a price on carbon. Who thinks the Australian people are that dumb? Putting a price on carbon—it is a carbon tax; call it a carbon tax. Have a modicum of decency and honesty: you are going to tax the living daylights out of industry and business and you are going to send the cost of living through the roof like a skyrocket. But you do not care, because you want the money. You have spent every cent you had; you want more. This is the Labor Party in action. It is pretty scary. And people are scared. They are scared of the cold, hungry, penniless winters they have to confront with a carbon tax.
Why did the Prime Minister deny there would be a carbon tax—'There will be no carbon tax'—instead of saying, 'A carbon tax will provide a clean energy future for all of us and we will all be better off'? No. She did not say that. She said, 'There will be no carbon tax.' And the Treasurer said, 'This is a hysterical allegation. We're not doing it.' Why not? Could it be that the cost of living will go through the roof like a skyrocket? Business, especially small business, will be under siege in terms of cost inputs. There will be a devastated economy. People will not spend, because they will be paying so much more for electricity. The price of petrol will be up by 6.5c a litre; the price of gas, 10 per cent a year; the price of groceries, particularly in regional Australia, will go through the roof because, in 2014, the cost of transport will be brought in, depending on where you live; and there will be electricity price hikes of $300 to $400 a year. But a carbon tax is a hysterical allegation; it was never going to happen. Within months we have a carbon tax. And the Labor Party are wondering why people do not believe them when they say, 'We've been upfront with the Australian people.' They have been everything but upfront with the Australian people. They have misled the Australian people and they know it. The Australian people have woken up to the sad sorry dawn of these misrepresenters—these fakes—who will say anything if they think the front page will keep their posteriors covered.
We in Western Australia have massive freight infrastructure costs coming with this carbon tax. Thousands of kilometres are travelled by transport companies to deliver basic staples—groceries, bread and milk. The prices of these things will go through the roof. A little town where I spent a lot of my younger days, Kalgoorlie, depends entirely upon Perth for its water, 600 kilometres away. How does the water get there? By electricity. You do not think people in Kalgoorlie are going to pay a hell of a lot more for their water? Our energy is generated by coal at Collie. I cannot believe I have to give a lesson like this. We have a desal plant providing water for Western Australia. Where does the energy come from? Electricity.
The biggest on-grid user of electricity in the Perth metropolitan area for the movement of potable water and sewage is the Water Corporation. People in Perth will be hit with their electricity bills and then their water bills.
But what about the economy generally? Victoria's manufacturing base, the heartland of manufacturing in Australia, has been built upon low cents per kilowatt hour from Gippsland. That has been our massive economic advantage. What are we doing to it? We are going to chop it off at the knees.
This crazy government does not understand anything about economics. This carbon tax will be ruinous. By 2020, $3.5 billion will have been spent each year on foreign carbon credits. It will rise by 2050 to $57 billion—that is, money offshore, to Upper Volta and Niger. That is the equivalent of 1.5 per cent of GDP. That is what we are currently spending on defence. This will take the defence portfolio out of our GDP. That is what it amounts to.
Do you think the government care about pensioners and people sitting in homes, in cold climates such as Tasmania and Victoria, desperate to be heated, desperate to cook their food where the price of electricity goes up and up, because they cannot make their sums add up? We only had to see the defence minister four days before the budget rip $5 billion out of the defence budget like an ATM because the calculator would not come up with the right number. This is the worst piece of public administration. Labor senators do not care. In New South Wales, we have seen electricity prices going through the roof. The carbon tax will come in and they will have to pay it, so they are trying to get some capital on the table so that they have the money to pay this tax. Electricity prices in South Australia are going up 18 per cent and 24 local government councils have received 'please explain' letters: 'We're naming and shaming you; we want you to pay the tax.' People who receive their rates in 2012-13 will wonder why on earth they have gone through the roof. Landfill sites, the collecting of rubbish—all of these things—are in the frame. But Labor just does not care about people's standard of living.
This carbon tax will be one of the greatest underminers of Australia's economic capability. And guess what? China is not having a bar of it. Canada is not touching it. The miners of Canada do not have to do anything, so their nickel, copper, lead and zinc will be a lot cheaper than ours. Japan and the United States are not touching it.
So here we are trying to compete, exporting everything we produce, with countries that do not have this massive carbon tax eating away like a cancer at their economic base. Towards the end of my time to speak, I say that, frankly, the minister has not said very much in her time, to my knowledge, but one thing she did say in 2009, about a carbon tax, a carbon price, was this. She said:
The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.
There, in her own words, she has told us exactly what the Labor Party is doing. Let us look at those words again. She said:
The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.
We know that without those other countries doing anything there is zero environmental gain, and here were the Labor Party being upfront with the Australian people and telling us what they are not going to do. Yet then they went right ahead, as they like and as clear as day, and imposed exactly what they said they would not. So they were telling us how bad it would be but they were still doing it.
We have really heard it all now in relation to the opposition's position on climate change and their terrible opposition towards pricing carbon, which they really cannot cope with because they are so divided on whether or not they even believe in doing something in relation to climate change—so much so, of course, that the hardliners, the sceptics like Senator Eric Abetz, and perhaps Senator Johnston falls into that category as well, continued to deny the facts right up until the time that they decided to roll their leader at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, on the subject because they simply could not live with the fact that pricing carbon was something he wanted to do, because they could not believe in it. That was despite the overwhelming science. We know how much science is out there and we also know that for decades in this parliament—and this goes for other parliaments across the world—we have been in conversation about the need to tackle climate change. Even their own former Prime Minister, John Howard, was willing to tackle climate change. He actually said an ETS was the least-cost option for families, that pricing carbon was a major reform and that you could not reduce emissions without a carbon price. That was their leader, their Prime Minister, but now that he has left the other place they are happy to walk away from coalition policy which was, in fact, addressing climate change—and addressing it with an ETS. Why are we doing the ETS? Because we know it is the most cost-effective option, as opposed to the opposition's so-called direct action policy. The ETS is the most efficient way to reduce emissions as well, with targets to meet our obligation to reducing carbon dioxide by five per cent by 2020 levels.
Senator Johnston talked—like he was some expert in the field—about how the rest of the globe are not introducing an ETS and how nothing is going on in relation to climate change. His comments could not be further from the truth. In fact, he has misled this place by stating that China, for example, is not having a bar of it. That is absolutely incorrect and I urge Senator Johnston to correct the record and to actually look at exactly what China is doing. He can go online and see very easily that, in their new, 12th five-year plan, from 2011 to 2015, China have launched an energy saving and emissions reduction plan, establishing carbon-trading pilot schemes across seven provinces and cities to start in 2013. Why are they doing that? They are doing that in order to establish whether they will then introduce a national ETS, to be ready by 2016. We are talking about the biggest polluting country on the globe taking action on climate change in the form of none other than an emissions trading scheme. So we have an emissions trading scheme on which action is being taken by a developing country that has recognised that it needs to improve its image, that it is the largest polluter now, that it has overtaken the US as being the largest polluter with its rising economic growth, that it does not want to continue on a path of growth at any cost and that it wants to look at growth at a sustainable level—sustainable so that it is meeting its economic development plans in a sustainable way. In doing so, it has allowed the emergence of NGOs and the media to monitor compliance with its ETS and other schemes.
This is the world's largest emitter of carbon, China, taking action—let alone the European Union, who have been active for a long time. The reason why China has delayed doing so up until now is that there is a belief in those countries of the developing world that we are in this global pollution situation because of the activities in earlier decades by the developed world—by Australia, by the US, by the EU nations—and that it is actually our responsibility to lead the way. That is exactly what Australia is doing, as we should. We should show those developing countries that, while we did do a lot of polluting in the past, not knowing the effects on our environment that those emissions were causing, now that we do know we are righting those wrongs of the past. We are leading by example and we are taking care of that responsibility in introducing an emissions trading scheme. In doing so, we encourage the developing world—which we need to be on board with us if we are going to reduce our carbon emissions and that is especially so with nations like China, who are the biggest polluter through their economic growth—to ensure that they do something about it too. So they are watching us to see what action we are taking.
Now, if the coalition had their way, China would not act. Some of those other developing nations would not act if developed countries did not do so themselves. So it is absolutely a furphy for Senator Johnston to come in here and say China is not having a bar of it. I ask him to do his homework and understand exactly what is going on in other countries, both developed and developing, in the world. Of course, the opposition want to roll back the numerous tax cuts that we are introducing through this package. Let us make it very clear, just in case the opposition senators have completely forgotten the way in which this package works. We will be taking the revenue that we receive from the biggest polluters and providing half of that revenue in assistance to households right across the country, including, as Senator Johnston alluded to, those Tasmanians who may be cold at night—including Tasmanians who need our support. In ensuring that we do so, how are we doing it? We are introducing a higher rate of family tax benefit. We are introducing an increase on pensions. We are introducing the tripling of the tax-free threshold. We are introducing other benefits and allowances to help households with the modest cost-of-living impact of the carbon price.
If, as Senator Thistlethwaite said earlier, there are power prices that are increasing right now, that is because the companies increasing them need to do so because of their ageing infrastructure requirements. We do not have a price on carbon yet. It is not 1 July yet. But we are ensuring that, come that time, we can provide the necessary benefits and requirements to support those households in meeting that cost so it will be offset. It is really a no-brainer. It is a simple policy of providing support to those people who will need it, through offsetting the increase on their electricity through the carbon tax.
Why are we doing all this? We are doing all this because we know that it is the right thing to do for not just this generation but future generations. We believe in taking responsibility for our future and for our children's prosperity, and that is why we introduced the clean energy future bills. Once we are gone from this place, we will have done our bit to ensure that our nation's contribution to our planet has ensured that it is there for many, many, many millennia to come. The science tells us that our own increased emission of carbon into the atmosphere is having an impact. It is having an impact on our oceans. It is having an impact on our atmosphere. It is having an impact on our way of living. We need to ensure that we amend those mistakes of the past by introducing a price on carbon which will result in an emissions trading scheme which will change behaviour for companies, for business, for the way in which we live. It is something that we are already doing every day in the way we live to reduce our carbon footprint on this planet as much as we possibly can. Through our assistance, households will receive that increase of $9.90 a week, while the average assistance will be $10.10 per week, all assisting us to introduce this incredible reform policy by 1 July. It will ensure that we very much improve our standing globally and our standing as a nation, for us and our children, in relation to carbon pricing and climate change as we go forward into the future.
I rise to address this matter of public importance because the public are concerned about things that work or do not work, and this carbon tax—let us call it what it is, not necessarily a 'clean energy future' or any of the other names that have been given to it—does not work. It stops work and it is a work of false testimony, for which this government and all of its members and its coalition partners in the Greens need to be held to account.
Why doesn't it work? One place where it has been tried, for example, is the European Union. The European Union has an ETS of a limited nature, but it is an ETS and it is one that the Gillard government has frequently called our attention to as an exemplar of why Australia should go down this path. One of the largest banks in Switzerland and one of the world's most respected banks released a report last year on the carbon price. Its very title gives us most of the information we need to know. The report was titled 'Carbon price to collapse: €210 billion wasted'. They highlighted that the carbon price has had 'limited benefits and embarrassing consequences, including billions of euros of windfall profits and fraud'. They highlighted that the carbon price in Europe has been responsible for creating double-digit increases in electricity prices and yet has done nothing—I repeat, nothing—for the environment. It has had zero or 'almost zero' impact on emissions. However, if the money had been used on direct action—that is, replacing their dirtiest plants—emissions could have dropped by nearly 43 per cent.
That goes to the heart of some of the coalition's beef with the government over this, in that people who care for the environment also want action that is effective. As UBS has shown, carbon pricing does not work. Labor actually are aware of that, because Penny Wong, when she was the Minister for Climate Change and Water, said:
A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.
So, even a couple of portfolios ago, Senator Wong—and the government—knew that a carbon tax did not necessarily guarantee that it would have the desired effect on the environment.
Families know that it does not work. In South Australia at the moment, we are heading towards the most expensive electricity prices in the world. The Energy Users Association, which compares household prices across 92 countries, showed earlier this year that South Australia had the third highest prices; and it is saying that, when the carbon tax comes in, increasing the average residential power bill by more than $150 in its first year, South Australia will have the highest power prices in the world. So families know it will not work. Logic tells you that it will not work in the long term. It will not work for the environment and it will not work for our nation. When it becomes an emissions trading scheme, the price will float according to the market. One of the factors that the UBS report highlighted is that the carbon price in Europe has had, in their words, 'a dramatic decline' of about 40 per cent and they anticipate that it will crash. If 40 per cent is just a reduction, a crash will be dramatic—and we are talking in the order of $4 per tonne, rather than the $23. So, if the subsidies that Senator Singh and the members opposite have been highlighting are going to be paid to Australian factories and families to compensate for this government's carbon tax and yet the price is dropping from $23 down to $4, that is a long-term structural problem for our economy. Conversely, if the prices increase to the levels that have been forecast, which are into the hundreds of dollars—according to those who say that the carbon tax is a good idea—then clearly the compensation that is being paid will be woefully inadequate to shelter those people and those businesses that are exposed. In the long term it does not work, which is possibly part of the reason that most of the people from the government who are speaking about the carbon tax, although they will not use that word, are not talking about its environmental impacts, but are talking about the money.
Our Prime Minister, on Twitter with the hashtag 'cashforyou', is more concerned about highlighting the bribes, the payments to people, than the long-term impacts of this tax on our economy. Nor are the government highlighting the fact that it will do nothing for the environment. So it does not work. It also stops work. The Nyrstar smelter in South Australia came out quite strongly against the carbon tax when it was announced, highlighting that it stood to cause some 1,500 people to lose jobs. They said:
If our competitors in Asia do not have a price on carbon in exactly the same way then the proposed policy makes us non competitive. It is sufficient not only to make those businesses unviable, it will be the cause of the exit for our Australian operation.
As we have talked about this lack of competitiveness with other manufacturing industries, many people have emphasised things like, 'Well, we've got a strong dollar,' or, 'Demand is low at the moment.' Anyone who has spent any time in the business world knows that factors vary: demand does go up and down, and our currency goes up and down. Business will factor those things in; they will take a considered risk. But what the carbon tax does is put in a structural impediment to competitiveness. That is the tipping point. As companies look forward—and they are used to dealing with the other things that go up and down—they go, 'We've now got low demand and a high dollar and a structural thing that we cannot cope with into the future.' That is why people are now starting to baulk at investing in the future of their infrastructure in Australia. That is why some people are moving already and that is why many are concerned about the viability of their sectors.
This government has made much of the global supply chain, particularly in the defence sector, and all the opportunities that are there for small to medium enterprises to link into global supply chains. What it does not mention is that each of those opportunities is a competition based opportunity and so our companies have to be able to compete with people overseas if they are to win that. This government has the lowest level of spending on defence after this budget since 1938, and that comes on top of a long period of deferring approvals, which means that small to medium enterprises are cash strapped because we are not seeing procurement activity occurring in Australia. On top of that, the government is now putting in a structural impediment to the competitiveness for these people to link into the very markets that the government is saying should ensure their future. Not only does it not work; it also stops other people working and it is a work of false testimony.
This is a tax that this Prime Minister said would not occur. 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' It is not just the Prime Minister. Every member sitting opposite and every member of the lower house went to that election, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister and saying 'there will be no carbon tax'. When we look at the voting record, we see that every Labor and Greens member and senator voted for the carbon tax. In South Australia, when people are looking at the future of Nyrstar or other industries, they need to be asking questions of the member for Makin, Mr Zappia; the member for Kingston, Ms Rishworth; the member for Wakefield, Mr Champion; the member for Port Adelaide, Mr Butler; the member for Adelaide, Ms Ellis; or the member for Hindmarsh, Mr Georganas. They need to hold them to account, because they are the people who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister and said, 'There will be no carbon tax. Trust us.' Yet they turned around and voted for a tax that UBS has shown does not work. It stops work and it is work based on false testimony, for which the Labor Party and the Greens should be held to account.
I would like to spend a few moments talking about what is happening out there in voter land. It is important to understand what people are saying out in the electorates. On Friday I was in Longman, talking to the parents of schoolchildren who are about to receive about $410 each under the schoolkids bonus, and out in Forde in the afternoon, talking to another lot of parents who were interested in what the government is doing with the carbon price household assistance. For example, out of the 54,000 taxpayers in Longman, 48,000 of them will receive assistance. At least 40,000 out of those 48,000 will receive a tax cut of at least $300. In the seat of Forde, out of 62,000 taxpayers, around 54,000 will receive a tax cut and, of those 54,000, 46,000 will receive a tax benefit of at least $300 as well. Let us cut to the chase; let us get to the hypocrisy surrounding this motion. We have just heard from Senator Fawcett. I am pleased that he raised the point of people baulking in investments. The hypocrisy of that statement is that there are people opposite and people in the other house who are investing in shares in the mining and resource industries. At least 30 per cent of those opposite are buying shares in those industries. Do not come into this chamber and cry, 'Doom and gloom! The earth is going to fall in! The ships are going to sail off the end of the world!' What a load of rot. What a disgrace you mob are.
Let us have a look at those opposite. Senator Gary Humphries, for a start, added a number of companies to his portfolio, including Matrix Composites and Engineering, which manufactures products for the offshore oil and gas and the iron ore industries. He also added Origin Energy. Let us look at Senator Sean Edwards, who in 2011 added Fortescue Metals Group to his interests and then, on 11 November 2011, added BHP Billiton and Newcrest Mining. However, in March this year he deleted Fortescue metals and BHP from his interests and in April deleted Newcrest Mining. There is the hypocrisy, Mr President. Those opposite come in here, saying, 'Doom and gloom: the earth is coming to end and jobs are going to be at risk,' yet they are investing so much in mining and resource sector shares. What a joke!
Let us have a look at what is happening in the House of Representatives. NineMSN reported that six coalition members of the House of Representatives purchased shares between 24 November 2011 and 21 March 2012. Out of that six, the member for Bennelong, John Alexander, bought shares in AGL; Paula Hunt, the wife of the member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, bought shares in Rio Tinto, Tiger Resources and Fortescue Metals Group; the member for Stirling, Michael Keenan, bought into Resource and Investment NL; the member for Flynn, Ken O'Dowd—a true blue Queenslander and National Party member—bought shares in Regis Resources and Hastings Fund Management Ltd; and the member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, invested in Evolution Mining and Oceanagold shares. Even Malcolm Turnbull—let us not forget the godfather of the opposition, who was so keen to introduce an ETS until he was stabbed in the back by Tony Abbott—has been making investments, in Veolia, Multiplex, Santos Finance and Renewable Energy Corporation.
As can be seen, it is clear; it is out there in the marketplace: people know what the legitimate circumstances are in this place. You lot over there are joke. You are hypocrites.
Senator Furner, you need to withdraw that.
I withdraw that comment. The information speaks for itself. Those opposite cannot come into this chamber claiming that the world is going to end when there are people in the opposition actively investing in the mining and resource sectors. It is just not a fair go when people out there are being led to believe that the world is going to end. That is not the case. We will sustain— (Time expired)
Order! The time for the discussion has expired.
Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Smith to make his first speech and ask honourable senators that the usual courtesies be extended to him. I call Senator Smith.
Thank you, Mr President. Let me begin by offering my sincere thanks to you, the Clerk of the Senate, the Usher of the Black Rod and others for the warm welcome I received when I first arrived at this distinguished place last month. It was a humbling moment. For all my dreaming and effort, and still after 48 days in the role, I occasionally pinch myself at being entrusted with the rarest of opportunities: to marry my heartfelt convictions for the values of the Liberal Party with an opportunity to represent Western Australia and its people in this place.
I regard the Senate as the first child of Federation and the most significant of our democratic institutions, and I challenge the view that its creation was a compromise. In prescribing how Australia's representative government would operate, our founding fathers took a deliberate and conscious step—our democratic style would consist of two separate and distinct mandates: one representing the people as a whole and one representing the people voting by their states. In every deliberation I will sanctify this historic fact.
Even though the First Fleet included 18 Smiths, with felonies as varied as stealing a handkerchief and committing highway robbery, even though Smiths were among the first soldiers to land at Gallipoli and despite the surname remaining one of Australia's most common, I was surprised to learn that I am only the second Smith to have served in this place. The first was Senator Miles Staniforth Cater Smith, who, having topped the Federation ballot on 29 March 1901 was elected as the first senator for Western Australia. When elected, he was a mere 31 years of age and the youngest senator at the time. Staniforth Smith, as he was known, was born 100 years before me and prior to entering the Senate was the mayor of Kalgoorlie. At the 1901 ballot he is said to have taken the electors by storm and secured just over 15,000 votes after a hurried four-week campaign that cost him £800—a considerable sum at the time. Staniforth Smith was defiantly Western Australian but always a strong federalist, a Protestant and an ardent free trader. By all accounts, he made a positive and well-regarded contribution to our nation's formative years. As a senator he was a champion of the underdog, speaking in favour of courts of appeal for workers with unfair wages, working conditions or insufficient leave. He promoted the cause of women and the principle of equal pay for equal work and believed that a nation's maturity could be measured only by the care it took of its old and frail citizens. I am pleased to add that he was quick to realise the costs to the states of Federation and would often speak of the need to be the vigilant against the duplication of effort between state and federal governments. It is a timely reminder that the more things change the more they stay the same.
As exciting as this opportunity is, I am fully aware that it has occurred against the backdrop of great sadness. I come to this place following the vacancy left by the death of Senator Judith Adams. Like many of you, I was lucky to know Judith. I also feel privileged to have witnessed a rare and unique event on my first day. Whilst listening to the many heartfelt tributes to Judith, I came to appreciate the collegiality of the Senate. Much has been said in tribute to Judith's dedication to the Senate—in particular, her work on the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, her real and genuine compassion and authenticity as a person and her unassuming yet absolutely forceful personality. Doorknocking and a strong competitive streak in matters affecting the regional rivalries of the Liberal and National parties in Western Australia are well known hallmarks of Judith's political career.
To the many tributes already made, I would like to add mine and point to her political and personal courage. In nearly seven years as a senator from Western Australia, Judith was confident in using all the authority and opportunities available to her in her role as a senator. Without fear, Judith fought vigorously for the dismantling of Australia's monopolistic wheat marketing arrangements. She won the battle. At a difficult but critical time, Judith stood up for regional communities against her own party's plans to embrace an emissions trading scheme. Judith displayed real political courage—'real' because these were political moments that were not about her own personal goals but about the goals and aspirations of the many she represented.
Looking over her life, Judith was a person of great courage and rare dignity. We know only too well the personal courage she showed in her private battles with cancer. Judith Adams went beyond delivering on the vow she made in her first speech to represent Western Australians with 'honesty, sincerity and integrity'. Having travelled around Western Australia, I know there is nothing as destructive to community as the feeling that others do not understand or care about your unique problems. I will follow the example set by Judith and commit to giving regional Western Australians a strong voice in this place.
I stand here this evening not to provide you with a commentary on the state of contemporary politics. Instead, I will share with you what I believe in and what has driven me in life and in politics to get me to this moment today. My political beliefs are an extension of the simple values taught to me by my parents. These are the values of honest hard work, trust, integrity and genuine compassion for those who find themselves in difficult and unfortunate circumstances. I have no political lineage, nor was I appointed by the great and the good. My political activism, which began as a Young Liberal in the 1980s, had its origin in watching my parents and observing their deep and selfless civic mindedness.
My parents have always cared about and been active in the communities in which they have lived. The first was Port Hedland in Western Australia's north-west where my parents first took our family in the early 1970s as my father began his 35-year career as a policeman. After Port Hedland, my family moved to a modest suburb in the heart of Perth's northern suburbs. It was in Nollamara that I attended Mirrabooka Primary School and Mirrabooka Senior High School. My parents still live in their original home in Nollamara. My parents constantly gave up their time to volunteer to ensure their children and the children of their neighbours had the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms of youth. It did not matter what community activities my brother, sister and I enjoyed, my parents were there by our side, at various times running the local football club and swimming club, the Boy Scouts, and the primary school and high school parents and citizens association.
For 34 years my parents, Alan and Judy Smith, have been at the heart of a little community sporting club known as the Mirrabooka swimming club. While it has not yet produced any Olympic champions, it has made a solid and lasting contribution to the positive and healthy development of many children across Perth's northern suburbs. Over the last 34 years, the club has received just $1,000 of taxpayers' money to support its activities. As parliamentarians we can do more to acknowledge and support the voluntary contributions of ordinary Australians and their families in community and sporting clubs across our suburbs and towns.
I am confident that my grandparents—Edward Ward and Jessie Croxford, and Frank and Nancy Smith—are looking down on this moment proud of my parents. I am also proud of my parents and delighted that they are here to witness my first speech from the public gallery this evening. They are joined by my brother, sister and brother-in-law, Grant, Rachel and John, and my niece and nephew, Maddison and Seaton.
Watching my parents over many years has reinforced in me two salient political points. The first is that all politics is local. The second is that community participation is the all-important glue that binds our communities and towns and keeps them alive. So there it is—the virtues of personal and civic responsibility came to me first by observation and were easily believed and understood when I subsequently read them theorised by Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. They were believed because I had seen them played out in my own life experience.
My formative political years coincided with a period of political transformation in Australia. At a time when my peers were engrossed in Countdown and were consumed by the euphoria of the America's Cup, I quickly distrusted and became angry at the hype that characterised the new Hawke government and its Western Australian counterpart, led by Brian Burke. While most were impressed by the glitter and the charm of the new, I looked around and saw ordinary families and small businesses being ignored by the political party that purported to represent them. I was appalled by Labor's cosy menage a trois of big government, big unions and big business, wilfully taking ordinary families like mine and those around us for granted. This political awakening drew me to explore political ideas and to accept that it was liberal democratic ideals that best supported families and communities like mine. I believe in smaller government, limited taxation and individual responsibility as being the building blocks of our prosperity. I believe it is cruel for government to suggest that it can cure every ill and a folly to suggest that legislation and regulation can remove every risk from our economic or social activity. The improvement in the human condition and our prosperity is the direct result of people having taken calculated risks, whether in medicine, science or economic enterprise. The temptation to make individuals and communities immune from risk only softens people's will and dampens their progress. I believe government should be ashamed when it promises people things it cannot afford to fund. I believe we should be more vigilant in challenging expectation when it seeks to overshadow and take the place of aspiration. Above all else, I believe that every individual should be free to always act as their conscience dictates. For me, this was a fundamental attraction to the Liberal Party.
In the broad church that is the modern Liberal Party, I sit comfortably on the conservative side of the aisle and I readily admit that I am a traditionalist. While many find it easy to dismiss and reject as relics of the past the enduring institutions of our country and the customs of our society, I see with clarity how these institutions have adapted over time. Being a conservative is not the same as being a reactionary. Being a conservative, respecting our traditions and institutions, is not about rejecting change. It is about recognising that cautious and considered change is more successful at delivering stability and continuity for our country.
This set of values is at the core of two of my greatest political passions. My first passion is Australian federalism. My home state is vast. Its people and priorities are broad and not easily understood by those living in faraway communities in very different circumstances. I believe in decentralised decision making, in diffuse political power, in allowing people to govern their own destinies. For Western Australia, so rich in people and natural resources yet so far from the centre of political power, this is a matter of political principle and practical necessity.
I acknowledge the modern Liberal Party has at times been a disappointing custodian of our federalism. It has been difficult for federalism to withstand the erosion from global forces, encroaching regionalisation and the poor performance of state governments. I will add my energies to correcting this blemish on the otherwise solid political traditions of my party. In this place I will not be a status quo federalist. We have at the moment a catalyst to drive real reform of the federation that could restore the authority of states and give Australians a greater involvement in the direction of their national affairs.
The fair and effective distribution of GST payments to the states is a critical national issue dear to the hearts of all Western Australians. Declining GST payments to Western Australia is the most damaging national issue for our state, and every Western Australian will feel the pain if the matter is not swiftly addressed. Western Australia's share of the GST will fall to 55 per cent this financial year and possibly to 25 per cent by 2016. Over the four years to 2016, WA will pay a $15.3 billion penalty for its economic success. Correcting this imbalance is at the core of reforms to revitalise our federation. It is critical that states are rewarded for economic success and that no state or territory is given a free lunch. This reform will take real political courage. The hopes of many Western Australians are resting on the shoulders of my party to deliver on this. I urge my party to rise to the challenge.
As a self-confessed traditionalist, my second great passion is for our constitutional monarchy, for which I hold a deep and abiding respect. I am proud to be making this speech in the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I will not add to the many powerful insights and observations already made over many years regarding the strength and durability of Australia's constitutional monarchy. Instead, I simply share my profound respect and reflective reverence for our sovereign, a sovereign who has become the most powerful symbol of duty and service beyond self:
Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign.
Today I recommit myself to standing shoulder to shoulder with the many, many other Australians who will forever defend the place of the Crown in our Constitution.
This evening I have shared with you some of the inspirations that have driven and encouraged me to stand up and be counted, both as an individual and now as a representative of my state. I aspire to one day also inspire others. It is my hope and ambition that my background and experiences will serve as a reminder that we should distrust the temptation to see the world through stereotypes. Every Australian has a personal story, experiences and values that inform their character, choices and political philosophy. As a boy from Mirrabooka High School, few would have imagined it possible that one day I would be a Western Australian Liberal Party senator. While it is easy to view each of us through the simplistic prism of stereotypes, this attitude only acts to diminish the unique and personal qualities and life experiences of all of us as individuals.
As a gay man from a conservative leaning party in a conservative state, I particularly pray that my simple journey so far may act as further encouragement to young Australians that our country is mature enough to look beyond the idea that race, gender, social standing and sexuality are the single determinants of an individual's social or political outlook. For the last 43 years I have lived my life authentically. I pray that God will continue to give me purity in every thought, conviction in the words I speak, courage in every action and a character marked by integrity and grace. There are many people who have been a constant source of encouragement and support throughout my life. First and foremost I thank my family for their unconditional love and trust. I am humbled to see in the gallery this evening friends and family from various parts of my life and to know that others are watching as well. These include my aunt, uncle and cousins; old schoolfriends from Mirrabooka Primary and Mirrabooka High School; friends from my first days in the WA Young Liberal movement; and many others who have supported me in this journey.
For the last 25 years I have been at home in the WA Liberal Party. The faith and trust that its state council has bestowed on me is at the forefront of all my considerations in this new role. I thank each and every one of them for the support they have given me over the years, particularly those who have supported me in the last six months. I reflect on the friendship and mentoring of Mark Heyward, Michael Ogden and Peter Wells, who are no longer with us but who I am confident are looking down with great pride and a sense of satisfaction this evening. Last and by no means least, I thank Kelli and Lee Orrell, Fay and Archie Duda, Kay and Jim Gilchrist, Richard Evans, Suzette Morris and Ross Field, who have never doubted that they would witness a day like today. Mr President, fellow senators: I am grateful for the courtesy you have extended to me this evening.
I present ministerial statements as listed at item 14 on today's Order of Business:
Afghanistan.
Military compensation arrangements.
20 year anniversary of the Mabo native title decision.
Pursuant to standing orders I present documents listed on today's Order of Business at item 15, which were presented to the President, the Deputy President and the temporary chairs of committees after the Senate adjourned on 10 May 2012. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised.
The documents read as follows—
(a) Committee reports
1. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services––Final report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––Collapse of Trio Capital (presented to the President on 16 May 2012).
2. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee––Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 [Provisions]––
Interim (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Furner, on 18 May 2012).
Final report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee (presented to the Deputy President on 30 May 2012).
3. Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit––Statement––Appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (presented to the Deputy President on 30 May 2012).
4. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee––Interim report––Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 (presented to the Deputy President on 31 May 2012).
5. Community Affairs References Committee––Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––The role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration regarding medical devices, particularly Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) breast implants (presented to the Deputy President on 31 May 2012).
6. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee––Interim report––Prospective marriage visas (presented to the Deputy President on 7 June 2012).
7. Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee––Interim report––Higher education and skills training for agriculture and agribusiness (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Crossin, on 8 June 2012).
8. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services––Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012 (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Stephens, on 13 June 2012).
9. Economics Legislation Committee––Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012 and related bills [Provisions] (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Moore, on 15 June 2012).
(b) Government response to parliamentary committee report
1. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee––Final report––Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Pratt, on 28 May 2012).
2. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee––Report––Australia's arrangement with Malaysia in relation to asylum seekers (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Stephens, on 13 June 2012).
(c) Government documents
1. Foreign Investment Review Board––Report for 2010-11 (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
2. Local Government national report––Report for 2008-09 on the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
3. Estimates of proposed expenditure for 2012-13––Portfolio budget statements––Portfolios and executive departments––Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio––Corrections (presented to the Deputy President on 23 May 2012).
4. Department of the Treasury––Report for 2010-11––Corrigendum (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 25 May 2012).
5. Estimates of proposed expenditure for 2012-13––Portfolio budget statements––Portfolios and executive departments––Health and Ageing portfolio––Corrections (presented to the Deputy President on 29 May 2012).
6. Department of Infrastructure and Transport (Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Act 2008)––Review of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Stephens, on 13 June 2012).
7. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency––Energy use in the Australian Government's operations––Report for 2009-10 (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Moore, on 15 June 2012).
(d) Reports of the Auditor-General
1. Report no. 38 of 2011-12––Administration of the Private Irrigation Infrastructure Operators Program in New South Wales: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Crossin, on 5 June 2012).
2. Report no. 39 of 2011-12––Management of the National Solar Schools Program: Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (presented to the Deputy President, on 7 June 2012).
3. Report no. 40 of 2011-12––Interpretative assistance for self managed superannuation funds: Australian Taxation Office (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Crossin, on 8 June 2012).
4. Report no. 41 of 2011-12––Performance audit––National partnership agreement on literacy and numeracy: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (presented to the President on 14 June 2012).
5. Report by the Independent Auditor––IT audit capability and resourcing: Australian National Audit Office (presented to the President on 14 June 2012).
(e) Return to order
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission––Report to the Australian Senate on anti-competitive and other practices by health funds and providers in relation to private health insurance for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fawcett, on 6 June 2012).
(f) Statements of compliance and Letters of advice relating to Senate orders
1. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency appointments and vacancies:
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Defence portfolio* (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Finance and Deregulation portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education portfolio [2] (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Attorney-General's portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Office for Sport (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Department of Veterans' Affairs (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Infrastructure and Transport portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Treasury portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Furner, on 18 May 2012).
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Furner, on 18 May 2012).
Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (presented to the President on 22 May 2012).
Health and Ageing portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 25 May 2012).
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Pratt, on 28 May 2012).
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Moore, on 1 June 2012).
2. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency grants:
Defence portfolio* (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Attorney-General's portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Regional Australia, Regional Development, Local Government and the Arts portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Finance and Deregulation portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Fisher, on 14 May 2012).
Office for Sport (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Department of Veterans' Affairs (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Department of Infrastructure and Transport (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio [2] (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Treasury portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 15 May 2012).
Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (presented to the President on 22 May 2012).
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (presented to the Deputy President on 24 May 2012).
Department of Health and Ageing (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 25 May 2012).
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Pratt, on 28 May 2012).
* denotes one letter covers both orders
In accordance with the usual practice and with the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the government responses be incorporated in Hansard.
The re sponses read as follows—
SENATE COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REPORT
AUSTRALIA ' S FUTURE OIL SUPPLY AND ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT FUELS
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Introduction
The Australian Government has been responding to the issues raised by the report of the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels. This response is encompassed in a broad-based comprehensive policy framework to equip Australia in meeting its future transport energy needs in an effective and environmentally sustainable manner.
The framework includes Government policies and initiatives currently being implemented as well as various Government reviews which will lead to further policy development. Government policies, initiatives and reviews relevant to the issues raised by Committee's recommendations include the:
Specific responses to the recommendations are provided below.
Recommendation 1 - The Committee recommends that Geoscience Australia, ABARE and Treasury reassess both the official estimates of future oil supply and the ' early peak ' arguments and report to the Government on the probabilities and risks involved, comparing early mitigation scenarios with business as usual.
In 2011, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET) released updates to the National Energy Security Assessment (NESA) and the Liquid Fuel Vulnerability Assessment (LFVA), which were first conducted in 2008/09. The 2011 NESA uses trend analysis across the short, medium and long-terms to allow a more fluid assessment of the future energy security environment, based on available data. The 2011 LFVA assessed Australia's level of vulnerability to disruptions to the supply of liquid transport fuel, both in the short and longer term. Both the 2011 NESA and 2011 LFVA can be of use for the Australian Government in determining the probabilities and risks involved with future oil supplies.
In 2010, ABARES and Geoscience Australia released the Australian Energy Resource Assessment. This national assessment of Australia's energy resources examines Australia's identified and potential energy resources including crude oil and condensate. It reviewed and assessed the factors likely to influence the production, consumption and trade of Australia's energy resources.
Two key messages that emerged from the assessment of oil were that:
The 2011 World Energy Outlook, produced by the International Energy Agency, forecasts that global oil production will increase between 2010 and 2035 on a business as usual scenario.
Recommendation 2 - The Government take into account the concerns expressed in the World Energy Outlook 2006, namely: current trends in energy consumption are neither secure nor sustainable; energy policy needs to be consistent with environmental goals, particularly the need to do more to reduce fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions.
The International Energy Agency's latest annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) was released on 9 November 2011. The WEO 2011 was a key input into the 2011 National Energy Security Assessment NESA, prepared by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. The 2011 NESA was used to help inform the draft Australian Government's Energy White Paper (EWP). The draft EWP and the 2011 NESA were released on 13 December 2011 by the Minister for Resources and Energy. Together these documents assist in delivering a clear and robust whole-of-government policy framework to provide certainty for investors as well as reliability and security for the Australian community. The development of the Energy White Paper is also cognisant of the need for Australia to continue the transition to a low emissions and environmentally sustainable economy, which was outlined in the Government's Clean Energy Future package.
Recommendation 3 - The Committee recommends that the Government publish the results of its review of progress made towards meeting the biofuels target of 350 ML per year, including which companies are meeting the target.
The Government notes that the biofuels target of 350 ML per year was a commitment made by the previous Government and is not current Government policy. Consistent with the Energy White Paper principles that favour market-led approaches, industry and the market will drive the take up of alternative transport fuels in Australia, and the Commonwealth does not support the adoption of mandates or targets.
Recommendation 4 - The Committee recommends that the Government examine the adequacy of funding for lignocellulose ethanol research and demonstration facilities in Australia, and increase funding, where appropriate.
The Government is of the view that the development of second generation biofuels, including lignocellulose, has the potential to supplement Australia's fuel supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. In recognition of the need to develop second generation biofuels, the Government has developed the Second Generation Biofuels Research and Development Program (Gen 2). Gen 2 is a competitive grants program that supports the research, development and demonstration of new sustainable biofuel technologies.
The Government has also established the $20 million Australian Biofuels Research Institute. This measure reflects the Australian Government's support for the potential of next-generation biofuels to increase Australia's energy security, diversify sources of liquid fuel supply and transition Australia to a low carbon economy. The work of the Institute will focus on supporting the development of biofuels from non-food and non-traditional feedstocks including algae, oil seeds and wood waste.
A national research, development and extension (RD&E) plan for biofuels and bioenergy is being developed under the Primary Industries Ministerial Council's National Primary Industries RD&E Framework. The plan aims to implement a collaborative national approach to ensure research and resources achieve the best outcomes for primary industries and these sectors, and will explore research priorities, capacity and emerging opportunities.
Recommendation 5 - The Committee recommends that the Government commission a research group within the Department of the Treasury to identij57 options for addressing the financial risks faced by prospective investments in alternative fuels projects that are currently preventing such projects from proceeding. This group should determine how these risks might be best addressed in order to create a favourable investment climate for the timely development of alternative fuel industries, consistent with the principles of sustainability and security of supply.
The 2011 Strategic Framework for Alternative Transport Fuels (the Framework) was developed in conjunction with industry and other stakeholders in the context of maintaining Australia's transport fuel security while moving towards a lower carbon economy by 2030. It establishes a long term strategic framework for a market-led adoption of alternative transport fuels in Australia. The Framework includes 20 actions for industry, Government and other stakeholders in the short, medium and long term that are focused on removing impediments to the market-led adoption of alternative transport fuels.
In recognition that access to capital is a challenge facing many renewable energy companies, in May 2011 the Government launched the $100 million Renewable Energy Venture Capital (REVC) fund to support renewable energy companies in commercialising their technologies. The Australian Centre for Renewable Energy (ACRE) has appointed Southern Cross Venture Partners as fund manager to deliver this commitment. Investment decisions by Southern Cross will be on a commercial basis.
In July 2011, the Government announced the establishment of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), as a part of its Clean Energy Future plan. Legislation establishing ARENA as an independent statutory authority was made into law on 4 December 2011 and ARENA will commence operations on 1 July 2012.
ARENA will consolidate administration of $3.2 billion in Government support for renewable energy technology innovation currently administered by ACRE, the Australian Solar Institute and DRET.
Around $1.7 billion of ARENA's funding is currently uncommitted and will be available for ARENA to meet its objectives of improving the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and increasing the supply of renewable energy.
Recommendation 6 - The Committee recommends that the Government, in consultation with the car industry, investigate and report on trends in the fuel efficiency of the light vehicle fleet and progress towards the 2010 target for the fuel efficiency of new passenger cars. If progress under the present voluntary code seems unlikely to meet the target, other measures should be considered, including incentives to favour more fuel efficient cars; or a mandatory code.
The Government has decided to introduce new mandatory CO2 emissions standards for all new light vehicles, including cars, from 2015. The emissions levels to apply under the standards, as well as the regulatory framework to implement the standards, will be developed in consultation with industry and other key stakeholders.
The Government's A New Car Plan for a Greener Future is preparing the Australian automotive industry for a low-carbon future by assisting the industry to produce vehicles and components with lower fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The package of measures included the Green Car Innovation Fund which closed to new applications on 27 January 2011. The Fund provided assistance to enhance research and development, and the commercialisation of Australian technologies that significantly reduce fuel consumption and/or greenhouse gas emissions of passenger motor vehicles.
Recommendation 7 - The Committee recommends that Australian governments investigate the advantages and disadvantages of congestion charges, noting that the idea may be more politically acceptable if revenue is hypothecated to public transport improvements (as has been done in London, for example).
The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics has forecast that the annual `avoidable' cost of congestion for the Australian capitals could increase to over $20 billion by 2020. Given the consequences of congestion for productivity and liveability, the Australian Government is working on a range of measures to address these challenges, including through collaboration with the States and Territories.
Congestion charging, if considered, would be the responsibility of State and Territory governments and is only one of a series of measures that can help reduce congestion.
The National Urban Policy also recognises road pricing (which is distinct from congestion charging, but may include congestion charging elements) as a potential means of reducing travel demand, and the Henry Review of Australia's taxation system also considered congestion charging and road pricing more generally. Implementation of congestion charges is ultimately a matter for State governments.
Recommendation 8 - The Committee recommends that Commonwealth support for Travel Smart projects be maintained beyond the currently planned termination date.
The Australian Government's view is that travel behaviour change measures, such as the Travel Smart projects, are most effectively developed and applied at a local/regional level by State, Territory and local Governments. As such, the Government did not extend funding for Smart Travel projects beyond 2008-09. However, the Government recognises there may be benefit in sharing information on these travel projects and will continue to explore opportunities with State and Territory Governments.
Recommendation 9 - The Committee recommends that corridor strategy planning take into account the goal of reducing oil dependence as noted in recommendation 2. Existing AusLink corridor strategies should be reviewed accordingly.
In 2008, Infrastructure Australia (IA) was established to advise Australian governments on infrastructure issues, including strategic planning issues, following the end of the AusLink Programme. IA completed a national infrastructure audit in December 2008. The audit identified infrastructure gaps, impediments and bottlenecks in the transport, communications, water and energy sectors.
IA's prioritisation methodology provided a best-practice approach for infrastructure prioritisation and was drawn from international and national best-practice and research. IA used cost-benefit analysis as the primary driver for prioritising projects. IA was asked in making its recommendations to have regard to the effects of climate change and Government policy on this issue. Accordingly, the costs and benefits considered in the analysis were not just economic but also social and environmental. IA indicated in its prioritisation methodology that any proposals submitted should include a monetisation of the impact of factors such as local air pollution and carbon emissions.
IA's development of a long term integrated approach to infrastructure planning and investment includes the release of the National Ports Strategy, a discussion paper on the National Freight Network Strategy and the development of a Public Transport Strategy.
In January 2011, IA released the National Ports Strategy. This strategy will improve the way Australia's ports are planned and managed, and reform port governance and planning. The Council of Australian Governments have endorsed the need for a national ports strategy and requested for an implementation plan to be approved by early 2012.
Work is also underway on the first ever national freight strategy aimed at developing a truly national freight transport network. A discussion paper on the National Freight Network Strategy was released in February 2011.
The COAG Reform Council has just finalised its two year review of the consistency of capital city strategic planning systems with nationally agreed criteria. COAG will consider the outcomes of this review at its next meeting.
As part of the 2011-12 Budget the Australian Government announced a reform package which will be implemented to strengthen IA. The extra funding will allow IA to expand its work to include providing independent policy advice on national infrastructure reforms such as the National Port and Freight Strategies, while working with governments and the private sector to develop a deeper 'pipeline' of priority infrastructure projects in the Australian market.
Recommendation 10 - The Committee recommends that the Government review the statutory formula in relation to fringe benefits taxation of employer-provided cars to address perverse incentives for more car use.
In the 2011-2012 Budget the Government announced a measure to remove the incentive for people to drive more than they need to in order to obtain a larger tax concession, by reforming the statutory formula method for valuing car fringe benefits.
This implements a recommendation of the Australia's Future Tax System Review.
Government Response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Report on the Arrangement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia on Transfer and Resettlement
Committee Recommendations
On 11 October 2011, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee tabled the Report on Australia's arrangement with Malaysia in relation to asylum seekers1. The Committee recommended that the Government not proceed with the implementation of the Arrangement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia on transfer and resettlement (Arrangement) "due to the obvious flaws and defects in that arrangement". Senator Hanson-Young made additional comments and five further recommendations.
Government Senators submitted a dissenting report and recommended that the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011 be passed by the Parliament in order to facilitate the implementation of the Malaysian Arrangement2 This remains the Government's position for the reasons set out below.
Government Response
The recent devastating Indonesian boat tragedies in November and December 2011, and the incident in Malaysian waters in February 2012—in addition to the loss of life as a result of the SIEV 221 tragedy off Christmas Island in December 2010 -illustrate the significant dangers involved in irregular maritime journeys facilitated by people smugglers who seek to take advantage of vulnerable people. There is nothing humanitarian in having a system that encourages asylum seekers to risk their lives getting to Australia in order to be provided with protection.
The Arrangement was designed to undermine any gain that could be achieved by travelling to Australia by boat while at the same time ensuring those transferred to Malaysia received effective protection. For this reason, the Government remains committed to the Arrangement with Malaysia, and broader regional arrangements within the Regional Cooperation Framework. They represent the most enduring means by which to address irregular migration and people smuggling in our region while ensuring improved access to asylum procedures and durable solutions for those in need of protection.
The Government believes irregular migration and people smuggling are global and regional issues that cannot be addressed by acting alone. These are challenges that must be tackled in partnership with other countries, many of which are not parties to the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugees Convention) and its 1967 Protocol. Indeed, the vast majority of thousands of asylum seekers in our immediate region—hundreds of thousands of people—have sought shelter in countries that are not party to the Refugees Convention. It is incumbent on Australia, in pursuing a regional approach to these issues, to engage constructively with these countries as well as those that have signed the Refugees Convention.
The establishment of the Regional Cooperation Framework on 30 March 2011 at the fourth Ministerial Conference of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime reflects that this is a common view held by other countries in the region.
The Arrangement with Malaysia under this framework was a milestone in regional cooperation, to which the Malaysian Government admirably remains committed, notwithstanding strong criticism by the Opposition, the Greens and others of Malaysia and its historical approach to asylum seekers.
Such criticism fails to recognise the very significant steps taken by the Government of Malaysia in recent times to improve conditions for the more than 90,000 asylum seekers and refugees currently in Malaysia.
This criticism also seems to question the Government of Malaysia's sincerity in entering into the Arrangement, which provides specific rights and protections to the asylum seekers transferred under the Arrangement.
The criticism also fails to acknowledge:
On 27 October 2011, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak restated his continued commitment to working with Australia to address irregular migration. The Australian Government has similarly indicated it will honour the commitment to resettle an additional 4,000 refugees from Malaysia over the next four years as part of the refugee component of Australia's existing Humanitarian Program.3
The protections incorporated in the Arrangement (including the commitment of the Malaysian Government to treat the transferees with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights standards), and the increased resettlement opportunities it envisaged, reflected a significant advance in the management of irregular migration in our region by improving humanitarian responses and increasing the available protection space.
The Government's view is that processing asylum claims in a third country is consistent with our international law obligations and accepted practice, so long as:
The Arrangement with Malaysia reflects these key tenets of the Refugees Convention. It also provides for a range of other practical protections and benefits for those transferred. This includes access to services and education supported by UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (TOM), as well as a commitment to durable solutions through resettlement for those in need of protection and safe and dignified return for those not in need of protection.
UNHCR and IOM were closely consulted during the negotiation of the Arrangement and both committed to support its implementation. As noted in the Government Senators' dissenting report, UNHCR remains supportive of the Arrangement. In its submission to the Committee, UNHCR indicated that the Arrangement "responds to the particular domestic and regional context of the asylum and migration situation in the Asia-Pacific region".
The Pre-Removal Assessment Process for Transfers to a Third Country for Processing, developed in close consultation with UNHCR, illustrates the Government's commitment to meeting our international obligations and ensuring that in the implementation of the Arrangement the needs of vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors, families and women at risk were considered and would be addressed.
In the absence of legislative amendments required to enable the Government to implement the Arrangement, the Government has commenced working towards making greater use of existing powers to more flexibly manage and process irregular maritime arrivals to Australia.4 This includes greater use of community detention and bridging visas, on a case-by-case basis, to allow residence in the community while refugee claims are assessed. Individuals will continue to be subject to mandatory detention for initial health, identity and security checks. Individuals who present unacceptable risks to the community will continue to be placed in held detention.
As part of the changes to asylum seeker management and processing, the Government is moving to a single, consistent and efficient protection visa process for both boat and air arrivals, using the current onshore arrangements for assessing applications for protection visas and independent review through the Refugee Review Tribunal system, as needed.
Conclusion
Speculation on the Arrangement alone was enough to cause a significant decrease in boat arrivals compared to the same period in 2010.5 In contrast, since the Government's announcement on 13 October 2011 that the Arrangement could not proceed due to an absence of parliamentary support for the necessary legislative amendments, irregular maritime arrival numbers have risen dramatically. In October 2011, there were 314 irregular maritime arrivals to Australia. In November 2011, this had increased to 895 and in December 2011 the number was 854.
The Government believes that, in order to have an effective deterrent to people risking their lives at sea in their attempts to reach Australia, we must work with countries in our region to develop appropriate offshore processing arrangements. For this reason the Government remains committed to the Arrangement with Malaysia.
————
1See: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/malaysia_agreement/report/index.htm
2Refer also to Recommendations 1 and 3 of Senator Hanson-Young's additional comments.
3Refer also to Recommendation 4 of Senator Hanson-Young's additional comments.
4Refer also to Recommendation 2 of Senator Hanson-Young's additional comments.
542 boats intercepted between May and August in 2010, compared to 18 boats intercepted for same period in 2011.
Ordered that the committee reports be printed.
by leave—I move:
That consideration of the committee reports and the government responses to committee reports just tabled be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Question agreed to.
by leave—On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Crossin, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 be extended to 25 June 2012.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Senator Crossin, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into prospective marriage visas be extended to 25 June 2012.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Crossin, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee on its inquiry into higher education and skills training for agriculture and agribusiness be extended to 21 June 2012.
Question agreed to.
I present a letter from the President of the Law Council of Australia, Ms Gale, relating to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report into the future direction and role of the committee.
I present the following responses to Senate resolutions:
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Carr) to a resolution of the Senate of 1 March 2012 concerning human rights in Iran
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Carr) to a resolution of the Senate of 19 March 2012 concerning Australian journalist, Austin Mackell
Minister for Health (Ms Plibersek) to a resolution of the Senate of 21 March 2012 concerning Chronic Disease Dental Scheme
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Snowden) to a resolution of the Senate of 22 March 2012 concerning Indigenous Australians and Closing the Gap
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Carr) to a resolution of the Senate of 22 March 2012 concerning World Tuberculosis Day
In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present reports of the Auditor-General.
Report no. 33 of 2011-12––Management of ePassports: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (tabled in the House of Representatives on 22 May 2012)
Report no. 34 of 2011-12––Upgrade of the M113 fleet of armoured vehicles: Department of Defence; Defence Materiel Organisation (tabled in the House of Representatives on 24 May 2012)
Report no. 35 of 2011-12––Indigenous early childhood development. New directions: Mothers and babies services: Department of Health and Ageing (tabled in the House of Representatives on 29 May 2012)
Report no. 36 of 2011-12––Development and approval of grant program guidelines: Department of Finance and Deregulation (tabled in the House of Representatives on 30 May 2012)
Report no. 37 of 2011-12––Child Support Program's management of feedback: Department of Human Services (tabled in the House of Representatives on 31 May 2012)
Report no. 42 of 2011-12––Management of the multicultural servicing strategy for the delivery of Centrelink services
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels.
Several years ago the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee conducted an inquiry into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels, with the following terms of reference:
1. projections of oil production and demand in Australia and globally and the implications for availability and pricing of transport fuels in Australia;
2. potential of new sources of oil and alternative transport fuels to meet a significant share of Australia’s fuel demands, taking into account technological developments and environmental and economic costs;
3. flow-on economic and social impacts in Australia from continuing rises in the price of transport fuel and potential reductions in oil supply; and
4. options for reducing Australia’s transport fuel demands.
By any examination this was a very worthy inquiry. We spent a lot of time investigating all of those issues and we realised, cross-party, how very significant and important it was that the inquiry did investigate those issues. We put forward 10 recommendations in total. It was supported cross-party by the committee, and the committee appreciated the gravity of the issue and the serious nature of what we were inquiring into.
I rise today to make the point that, given we tabled this report in 2007, it has taken the Labor government nearly five years to respond. Admittedly, the coalition was still in government for the first few months after we tabled the report. But since that time the government has had these recommendations and it has done absolutely nothing to respond to the Senate committee and to the recommendations. For a government to take over four years to respond to recommendations from a Senate committee on an extremely important inquiry is completely unacceptable. We are standing here today receiving a response from the government.
It is, quite frankly, shameful that this government could not respond in a timely manner to the recommendations that were put forward by the Senate committee. It is indicative—and I know my colleague Senator Back will agree—of the shambolic nature of this government. They simply cannot apply proper process to the running of the nation and the government. I know that Senator Back and the rest of my colleagues would be interested to know the reasons that this government took over four years to respond to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee's recommendations on this very important issue.
The responses—having waited over four years to receive them—are flimsy at best and contain no real detail or any kind of substantive response from the government. The committee has been sent 4½ pages, after over four years—we basically have a page a year. The responses are flimsy, not substantive and show that the government clearly has not treated this inquiry or its recommendations, or the committee itself, with the respect they deserve. The committee deserves respect for the amount of work, cross-party work, that went into this inquiry. We find the length of time the government has taken to respond to be entirely unacceptable.
I have some comments to add to those of Senator Nash and I find myself in complete agreement. This inquiry was initiated by Senator Christine Milne. It took three referrals through this chamber before that important piece of work was actually accepted for an inquiry. Senators Milne and Siewert and the other members of the committee then spent a long period of time working on this important question.
This is an issue that I have since taken up, and I look forward to getting the government's response in detail. It goes very much to Australia's vulnerability as a country to supply shocks in transport fuels. When we get into the detail of this government response, what I suspect we will find—
Is that there is no detail?
that's quite correct, Senator Nash—is that there will be no detail whatsoever, just as there has been no detail in successive budget estimates sessions when I and other senators have taken up the following issues. Who is in charge of looking after Australia's transport vulnerability? Who is in charge of looking after where our oil is going to come from in an age of peak oil? The climate debate in this place, shambolic as it is, is at least occurring, and at least there is a cross-party acknowledgement—or there was until recently—that there is a serious public policy to address here.
On the issue of oil depletion, supply shocks, price shocks and peak oil, and what that actually means, there is virtually no debate whatsoever. There is no lead portfolio minister; there is no cross-portfolio response; there is no whole-of-government task force. With the noble exception of Queensland, which actually did some quite serious work on this a number of years ago—principally due to the work of one particular MP who took an interest in oil supply issues—the rest of the states are simply a policy vacuum. People are looking to the Commonwealth for leadership, and they are not getting it. Treasury has done no modelling. The infrastructure department and Infrastructure Australia will not show what models they use to model peak oil and oil depletion, or what future price models they incorporate into their models when they are choosing, for example, whether to build a new urban freeway or an urban freight line. There is simply no thinking going on at senior levels, apart from denial.
There is one very interesting report by BITRE, as it was known then, into oil depletion—the rather notorious report 117—which was deleted, which was never published, because it showed some spark of interest and recognition at a very senior level that in fact we will have severe supply constraints. The date that was nominated in that report was 2017. I suspect it may be sooner than that, but at least there was an acknowledgement that we need to transition into alternative sources of supply. That report was shredded. It was buried. We only know of its existence because it turned up on somebody's blog. The report 117 that was eventually published turned out to be on the bright future of aviation and how aviation was going to double over the next decade.
There is widespread policy blindness at the highest levels. Perhaps the minister has come in here to explain exactly why that is. Perhaps there are some extraordinary revelations in this response by the government to the Rural and Regional Affairs Committee report. Somehow, I doubt it. I support Senator Nash's comments and her question as to why it took such a long time for the government to respond on this issue and why it is that at senior levels of the government, state and federal, we can find no interest at all in the balance of payments wreckage that is going to occur—and, in fact, no serious questioning as to who our supplier nations are going to be when we become even more dependant on foreign sources of oil supply than we are now. Our communities are exquisitely vulnerable to oil price shocks, and this is about to become a very serious political problem. We in the Greens will continue to raise it. We will continue to work in cross-party fora like the Senate committee system to raise these issues, but the issues need urgent attention from the Australian government and from state and territory governments so that we are not dealing with this issue in retrospect. I thank the chamber and I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
Madam Acting Deputy President, on indulgence—I wonder if I might be able to go back to item 14, ministerial statements, in relation to the government response to the review of military compensation arrangements. I have discussed the matter with the Government Whip and I seek leave to take note of the statement.
Leave granted.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
I present the government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on the Review of the Defence annual report 2009-10 and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Review of the Defence Annual Report 2009-2010
Government Response
Department of Defence
Recommendation 1
The Department of Defence review its practices and procedures to ensure that answers to the Committee's questions on notice are provided in a more timely manner.
Government Response
Agreed
The Department agrees with Recommendation 1 and has recently implemented new practices and procedures relating to questions on notice to support more timely responses. A key advance was the implementation of a new electronic tracking system that has resulted in considerable improvements in responding to both Parliamentary and Committee questions. In opening remarks to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Legislation Committee at the Additional Estimates hearing in February 2012, the Secretary for Defence highlighted the large number of complex questions on notice received by Defence through both Parliament and the Parliamentary Committees, emphasised Defence's improvement in responding to questions on notice on time, and reiterated Defence's commitment to continuing to seek further improvements in this area.
On behalf of the Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Senator Boyce, I present the report on the statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, together with the Hansard record of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Boyce, I seek leave to continue my remarks—if that is possible.
Leave granted.
On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present two reports of the committee as well as executive minutes on various reports as listed at item 16(c) on today's Order of Businessand seek leave to move a motion in relation to the reports.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the reports.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters I present the report of the committee on the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia and Tonga and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to table the report.
Leave granted.
() (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report entitled Review of the re-listing of Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi as terrorist organisations.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I can inform the Senate that the current regulations were signed by the Governor-General on 8 March 2012. They were tabled in the House of Representatives and the Senate on 13 March 2012. The disallowance period of 15 sitting days for the committee's review of the listing began from the date of the tabling. Therefore, the committee was required to report to the parliament by today. In fact, it was perhaps by earlier than today. When one starts to do the mathematics, it may well have been 29 May 2012. Nevertheless, I am speaking today.
For the benefit of the Senate, I take this opportunity to outline some information very briefly on each of these organisations. I will also report to the Senate on the findings of the committee in relation to the four organisations.
In relation to Ansar al-Islam, or AAI, as it is known, it plans and conducts attacks against foreign forces, Shia, Kurdish and Iraqi government interests. AAI's attacks most commonly target US and Iraqi security forces in Iraq using improvised explosive devices, or IEDs as we know them in the Senate, and indirect fire attacks.
The statement of reasons lists over 50 attacks for which AAI has indicated responsibility by posting a video or media statement in the period since the last review. Their methods have included assassinations, the use of small arms, thermal grenades and IED and mortar attacks against Iraqi police and military personnel and also against US military patrols bases and vehicles.
The committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to Ansar al-Islam.
The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, or IMU, is a militant Islamic group based and operating in Central and South Asia. The group established relations with the Taliban and al-Qaeda and allegedly became extensively involved in narcotics trafficking. One of its founders, Namangani, was killed during the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and the remnants of the IMU fled across the border to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Although its capabilities were severely degraded, the following years saw the IMU regroup in the south of Waziristan area of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, where it established close links to a number of Pakistani Taliban groups and reportedly participated in cross-border attacks on the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
Notwithstanding increased pressure from ISAF and Pakistani security forces, reports throughout 2010 indicated that the IMU had re-established an operational presence in northern Afghanistan, and the group also claimed responsibility for a series of attacks in Tajikistan. The committee again does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to the IMU.
In relation to Jaish-e-Mohammad, the statement of reasons indicates that that organisation is based in Pakistan and operates primarily in Indian Administered Kashmir. Jaish-e-Mohammad operatives have been involved in attacks against civilian and military targets in Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. The organisation's attacks have included suicide bombings in 2001 and 2003, with most attacks since that time involving grenades and firearms. Jaish-e-Mohammad continues to concentrate its efforts against Indian security forces, both military and police, and also against government installations and civilians in the disputed territory of Indian Administered Kashmir. In addition, Jaish-e-Mohammad has broadened its operational focus to join the Afghan Taliban in attacks against government and coalition forces in Afghanistan. Again, the committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to Jaish-e-Mohammad.
With Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre states that its activities have been curbed following the arrest of key leaders and the particular focus of the military and police authorities on the group, resulting in the arrest of hundreds of activists. Following the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May of last year, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi vowed to conduct a series of retaliatory attacks. To this end, a spokesman for the organisation, identifying himself as Ali Sher Haidri, released a statement in mid-May 2011 threatening to avenge bin Laden's death by targeting not only government ministers and security force personnel but also Shia Muslims from the ethnic Hazara community in Pakistan. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi followed through with these threats with a series of significant attacks in and around Quetta between May and July 2011. The statement of reasons lists 12 acts of terrorism attributed to or suspected of being perpetrated by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. Again the committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.
I take, as we always do, the opportunity of speaking to these matters briefly to thank the chair, deputy chair and members of the committee for their work in reviewing these and other terrorist organisations. And as is traditionally the case, I thank the committee secretariat, the secretary of the committee and the staff of the committee, for their work. Finally, I commend this report to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That Senator McEwen be discharged as a substitute member from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.
Question agreed to.
I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Telecommunications Interception and Other Legislation Amendment (State Bodies) Bill 2012 and move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have a second reading speeches incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows
CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT (PROXY VOTING) BILL 2012
Today, I introduce a Bill that will clarify a requirement in the Corporations Act 2001 relating to executive remuneration.
During 2011, the Government enacted reforms to strengthen Australia's remuneration framework through the Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Act 2011. As part of these reforms, key management personnel and their closely related parties were prohibited from participating in the non-binding shareholder vote on remuneration.
However, an exception was provided to allow the chair of an annual general meeting to vote undirected proxies in remuneration related resolutions where the shareholder provides informed consent for the chair to exercise the proxy. Some confusion has arisen about whether this exception applies to the non-binding vote on remuneration.
The Government's intention on this matter is clearly set out in the Act passed last year and its associated extrinsic material. Additionally, ASIC announced last year that if companies are concerned about this issue, they could apply to ASIC for relief. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, the amendment in this Bill makes it clear that this exception also applies to the non-binding vote required under section 250R.
While it has always been the case that the Chair could have voted undirected proxies where the shareholder provides informed consent, the Government has made this clarification, so that no harm or cost or disruption was caused from any confusion arising from the original Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Act 2011.
There is no doubt that at no-time was any Company Chair at risk as a result of the confusion surrounding the original Amendment, however the Government has responded to and worked closely with stakeholders to ensure that this Bill makes it absolutely clear that the exception allowing the chair to vote undirected proxies also applies to the non-binding vote on remuneration.
Finally, I can inform the chamber that the appropriate approval of the Ministerial Council for Corporations have been obtained as required under the Corporations Agreement.
SKILLS AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN WORKFORCE AND PRODUCTIVITY AGENCY) BILL 2012
Introduction
In the 2011-12 Budget, the Government took important steps to build Australia's future workforce and good jobs for the future. We delivered one of the largest skills packages in our nation's history – a $3 billion investment over six years to ensure that industry has the skilled workers it needs to grow and prosper, and that more Australians than ever before will be able to access training, and the life opportunities that come through skills and employment.
To secure Australia's long term prosperity the Government's Building Australia's Future Workforce package provided the framework for a new skills and participation agenda that:
The Building Australia's Future Workforce package is built on Labor's already significant investment in Vocational Education and Training (VET). In the three financial years from 2008 to 2010, we invested $11 billion in VET.
A new partnership with industry
In the 2011-12 Budget, the Government responded to requests from its industry and union partners to improve the linkages between skills funding and industry needs and to increase the focus on workplace productivity in Australia.
The Australian Industry Group, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have all argued for a more integrated approach to tackling Australia's skills and productivity challenges.
In its national workforce development strategy, Australian Workforce Futures, Skills Australia recommended a new partnership approach to workforce development at government, industry and enterprise level. And in its most recent report, Skills for Prosperity – a Roadmap for Vocational Education and Training, Skills Australia also recognised that more than any other education sector, the training sector "connects learning with the labour market, the workplace and community development".
It was in this context, that we announced the creation of a new industry-led national workforce and productivity agency, to expand on the successful role of Skills Australia and provide independent advice on the skills and workforce development needs of industry sectors and regions.
I am pleased to introduce the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 to implement the Government's commitment to establishing this new agency, which replaces Skills Australia from 1 July 2012.
The aim of the new agency is to improve long-term workforce planning and development to address skills and labour shortages, and contribute to improvements in industry and workplace productivity. It will give industry a stronger voice and ensure the Government's investment in training delivers the skills that industry and the economy need, in the right place at the right time.
Importantly, the agency will have the ability to advise the Government to direct funding to areas of critical industry need, and will be an authority on workforce development policy. It will build on the strengths of Skills Australia, and collaborate with industry associations, Industry Skills Councils, unions and employers to ensure a shared, practical approach which meets sectoral, regional and small business industry needs.
It will also have a key role in advising the Government on policy direction and expenditure priorities for the $558 million industry-focussed National Workforce Development Fund. This gives industry a place in the drivers' seat for a substantial Australian Government investment in workforce development. Under the Fund, industry will co-invest in the skills our economy needs most, providing around 130,000 training opportunities for job seekers and people who already have jobs but need to learn new skills.
Description of the Bill
Because of the strong role of Skills Australia in the past, the Government has retained in this bill, the effective governance structure and legislative framework of that body. The amendments in the bill are therefore simple, but they make important changes to enhance the object and functions of the Skills Australia Act 2008 to reflect the expanded role of the agency from 1 July 2012.
These broadened functions will give the agency a stronger research, analysis and advisory role, and specifically provide for it to address improvements in Australian workforce productivity. They will also ensure the agency can advise the Government on the allocation of Commonwealth industry skills funding, including the National Workforce and Development Fund.
The bill provides for an expansion in the size of the agency, compared to the current size of the Skills Australia membership, and an expansion of the current membership criteria. This reflects the transition to a balanced, fully representative union and industry-led body, and will allow for the agency to meet its significant skills and workforce development agenda from July this year.
This bill represents the Gillard Labor Government's commitment to working in partnership with industry and unions to make this nation stronger and more prosperous for all Australians.
TAX AND SUPERANNUATION LAWS AMENDMENT (2012 MEASURES NO.1) BILL 2012
This bill amends various taxation and superannuation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws and retirement savings system.
Schedule 1 ensures that a health supply by a health care provider paid for by an insurer, statutory compensation scheme operator, compulsory third party scheme operator or a government entity under a health funding arrangement, is treated as a GST-free supply.
GST-free treatment applies where the underlying supply from the health care provider to the individual is a GST-free health supply. For example, if the Department of Health and Ageing pays a doctor to treat a veteran then the supplies will be GST-free.
This will avoid increased compliance costs that would otherwise arise for taxpayers in multi-party arrangements involving supplies of health related goods and services.
These amendments restore the intended operation of the GST law following the Department of Transport decision, ensuring that multi-party arrangements involving relevant health related supplies of goods and services are GST-free.
These amendments apply from 1 July 2012.
Schedule 2 ensures that the non-commercial activities of government related entities are not subject to GST. The amendments restore the policy intent of the GST law concerning government appropriations following the 2009 Full Federal Court decision in TT-Line.
These amendments ensure that a payment under a government appropriation is not subject to GST if it is made between government related entities for non-commercial activities.
For example, a payment made by a State Department of Education from State Government funds will not be subject to GST if it is paid to a public school.
The amendments will ensure that government entities do not face an increase in compliance costs and do not have to change their budgetary processes and practices.
These amendments apply from 1 July 2012.
Schedule 3 pauses the indexation of the superannuation concessional contributions cap for one year.
The general concessional cap is indexed annually in line with movements in full-time average weekly ordinary time earnings. The cap only changes, however, when the cumulative indexed amount reaches $5,000 or greater.
It was expected that indexation would increase the general concessional contributions cap from $25,000 to $30,000 in 2013-14.
This Schedule pauses the indexation of the cap in 2013-14, which means that the cap is now not expected to increase to $30,000 until 2014-15. As a result, the increase in the higher concessional contributions cap for individuals aged 50 and over, and the non-concessional contributions cap will also effectively be paused in 2013-14.
Schedule 4 gives eligible individuals the option to have excess concessional contributions taken out of their superannuation fund and assessed at their marginal tax rates, rather than incurring the potentially higher effective rate of excess contributions tax.
This measure will make the concessional contribution caps fairer by giving most individuals who exceed their concessional contributions caps a second chance.
This measure applies to excess concessional contributions of $10,000 or less made in the 2011-12 and later financial years.
This measure is expected to benefit just over 30,000 individuals who exceed their concessional contributions caps over the forward estimate period.
The ATO will handle the majority of the administration process to minimise the additional compliance cost on funds and the individuals.
Successful passage of this bill will make the concessional contributions caps fairer.
Schedule 5 includes a further exception to the secrecy provisions in Division 355 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953.
This measure is part of a broader package of superannuation measures aimed at making it easier for superannuation funds and their beneficiaries to locate and consolidate unnecessary and lost superannuation interests and benefits.
This measure will allow the ATO to disclose superannuation information to superannuation entities, exempt public sector superannuation schemes, retirement savings account providers and their administrators.
This measure will expand the types of accounts to be displayed on the ATO online search facility. It will also permit tax officers to disclose information where it is for the purpose of assisting a beneficiary of a superannuation fund to find, consolidate, transfer, cash or otherwise manage their beneficiaries' superannuation interests and superannuation benefits.
From 1 July 2012, this Schedule will enable individuals to view their superannuation accounts which are reported to the ATO on member contribution statements, as well as lost accounts and other superannuation monies held by the ATO. It will also enable funds to search online for their members' superannuation accounts known to the ATO, including lost accounts and ATO held monies.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has been consulted on these amendments, and has indicated that it is not opposed to the extended use of the TFNs as a means of promoting efficiency in the superannuation system where there is a likelihood of significant benefits for individuals and personal information is protected.
Schedule 6 delivers on one of the central elements of the Government's Securing Super package, announced during the 2010 election campaign. It requires employers to report to employees, on payslips, not only how much super they will be paying, but also when they will actually pay it. This measure comes into force after the date of proclamation.
This measure will address a huge problem, in that a significant minority of employers fail to pay their super.
During 2010-11 the ATO investigated 17,943 employee complaints, raised superannuation guarantee entitlements for nearly 279,000 employees, raised $517 million and collected $269 million in superannuation guarantee charge, and collected $139 million in penalties.
Employees worst affected tend to be those who are most vulnerable, that is, low-income, casual and part-time workers.
Giving employees more information about their super is important. While the ATO proactively audits high risk employers, it cannot monitor all superannuation contributions. For this reason, the system depends crucially on employees monitoring their contributions.
But, currently, employees do not receive information on their contributions in time to take action. The law used to require employers to report their contributions within 30 days of making them, but the Opposition, when in Government, abolished that requirement in 2004.
That is why the Gillard Labor Government is taking strong action to make sure employers do the right thing.
Under the broader Securing Super package, employees will receive information on their payslips about when their super will actually be paid into their account, and quarterly or six-monthly notification from their super fund about their contributions.
This Schedule will enable employees to know when they can check with their fund that their contributions have been made. And the measure will reduce the time it takes to identify unpaid contributions. It will allow the ATO to take compliance action more quickly, and improve the chances of recovering the unpaid super.
All businesses like to paid on time by their customers. If the business next door isn't paying their fair share, they have an unfair advantage relative to the business doing the right thing. This is not good for competitiveness.
In terms of timing, the Government is seriously considering the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. If the industry can meet the 1 July 2013 deadline for introducing the reporting of actual contributions, then the new requirements should apply from that date. Otherwise, we will consider an interim measure.
The measure has the public support of a range of industry groups, including ASFA (the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia), AIST (the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees) and the ACTU.
Lastly, Schedule 7 provides the Commissioner with a legislative discretion to delay refunding an amount to a taxpayer, pending integrity checks of their claim.
These amendments are in response to the Full Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Multiflex Pty Ltd, that the Commissioner is required to pay a GST refund within the time taken to process a taxpayer's return, and the Commissioner has no additional time to check the validity of the claim, even in cases where the Commissioner suspects it might be incorrect, including due to carelessness, recklessness or fraud.
The amendments seek to restore what had been the Commissioner's administrative practice, before the Multiflex decision, of retaining certain amounts whilst undertaking refund integrity checks of a taxpayer's claim.
The changes seek to strike a balance between a taxpayer's right to receive a prompt refund and the Commissioner's obligation to protect the integrity of the tax refund system. Following public consultation on the draft legislation, a number of changes were made to ensure the right balance is struck.
In particular, the amendments in Schedule 7 only allow the Commissioner to delay a refund claim if it is reasonable, and he must tell the taxpayer of that decision within 14 days (or 30 days, depending on the relevant tax) or otherwise pay the refund. Taxpayers will also be able to object where payment of the refund has been delayed for more than 60 days. These features provide taxpayers with more rights than previously available under the Commissioner's administrative practice.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STATE BODIES) BILL 2012
The Telecommunications Interception and Other Legislation Amendment (State Bodies) Bill 2012 makes amendments to four Commonwealth Acts to facilitate telecommunications interception and access powers for the Victorian Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission (the IBAC).
The Bill will:
Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission
Victoria will abolish the existing Office of Police Integrity and is establishing the IBAC. The IBAC will become the body responsible for overseeing the Victoria Police.
However, the IBAC will have a broader jurisdiction as it will also be responsible for investigating, exposing and suppressing corruption involving or affecting all public officials in Victoria.
The amendments contained in Schedule 1 are the first pre-condition to be met before the Attorney-General can declare the IBAC to be an interception agency for the purposes of the Interception Act.
The ability to be able to access information under the Interception Act is imperative in investigations of serious corrupt conduct.
People participating in corrupt conduct often do so using clandestine communications methods in a bid to avoid detection by law enforcement.
Accordingly, these powers are critical to ensure that the IBAC is able to access information which proves that corrupt conduct is occurring.
Other States such as New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia have already established anti-corruption Commissions which can access these Interception Act investigative powers. The inclusion of such a Commission in Victoria increases the application of the interception and access regime nationally.
The Interception Act already strictly regulates how agencies that receive intercepted information are able to use and communicate that information – this is important in ensuring that privacy and oversight considerations are part of the interception regime. Accordingly, there are detailed provisions which set out the circumstances in which interception agencies can use and communicate intercepted information.
Consequential amendments
Schedule 1 to the Bill also contains consequential amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953, Privacy Act 1998 and Crimes Act 1914 to replace references to the OPI with references to the IBAC.
The Crimes Act currently allows a constable or Commonwealth officer to make available to OPI documents or seized things, to be used by OPI for specific purposes, including preventing, investigating or prosecuting an offence against a Victorian law. The Bill will remove the reference to the OPI and provide the IBAC with access to such documents or seized things, for the same specific purposes.
The amendments to the Taxation Administration Act will allow the Australian Taxation Office to disclose taxpayer protected information to the Vic IBAC for law enforcement purposes, including investigating serious offences and enforcing the law.
The amendments to the Privacy Act will include the Vic IBAC within the definition of 'enforcement body' which is used in the National Privacy Principles in relation to the law enforcement exemptions to the use and disclosure, and access and correction obligations.
Victorian Inspectorate
To oversee the functioning of the IBAC, Victoria has established the Victorian Inspectorate.
Schedule 2 to the Bill makes amendments to the Interception Act to ensure that the Victorian Inspectorate is able to receive and use intercepted in support of its oversight and complaints handling functions.
Victorian Public Interest Monitor
The Bill also makes amendments to support the establishment of a Public Interest Monitor in Victoria (Victorian PIM).
This body has been established to represent public interest during applications for a range of covert warrants by Victorian agencies.
This is not the first time the Commonwealth Government has recognised the role of a public interest monitor. The Queensland Monitor currently has an oversight role for control orders under the Criminal Code and in applications for interception warrants by Queensland interception agencies.
Schedule 3 of the Bill will enable the Victorian Monitor to receive information about an application for an interception or surveillance warrant by a Victorian agency so that the Victorian Monitor may:
i. appear at an application before a person who is eligible to issue a warrant
ii. make submissions and ask questions, and
iii. require the person issuing a warrant to take the submissions of the PIM into account when considering the application.
Conclusion
This Bill is an important step in ensuring that a State body responsible for detecting, investigating and prosecuting serious criminal activity is able to access investigative tools imperative to support their functions.
This Bill balances access to communications with appropriate record keeping and independent oversight to ensure the ongoing protection of privacy for individuals.
I commend the Bill.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together, and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bills and move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2012 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2012
This Bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws.
Schedule 1 will reduce the marginal tax rate that applies to non resident workers employed under the Government's Seasonal Labour Mobility Program to 15 per cent, administered as a final withholding tax. The change will apply with effect from 1 July 2012.
The Seasonal Labour Mobility Program is an important element of the Government's Pacific Engagement Strategy, a whole of government strategy designed to advance Australia's engagement in the Pacific. It builds on the successful Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme, which concludes on 30 June 2012. This measure will significantly reduce compliance costs for seasonal workers participating in the program and simplify administration for the Australian Taxation Office by removing the requirement to lodge a tax return.
The changes introduced in this Bill will not impact Australian workers or non-residents who are not seasonal workers.
Schedule 2 amends the excise law, which currently treats the blending of fuels taxed at different rates as excise manufacture, which can only occur in licensed premises and requires payment of additional duty, unless an exemption applies.
The amendments specify the circumstances where blending the same types of gaseous fuels, which have been taxed at different rates, is not treated as excise manufacture.
The amendments also specify the circumstances where blending the same types of aviation fuels, which have been taxed at different rates, is not treated as excise manufacture.
The blending issues were unintended consequences of two sets of legislation. First, the alternative fuels legislation, which provided for the phase-in of duty on gaseous transport fuels. The phase-in provided the possibility of inadvertent excise manufacture when fuel taxed at one rate is delivered into a tank containing fuel taxed at another rate.
Second, the clean energy legislation applied an effective carbon price on aviation fuels and non-transport gaseous fuels using the fuel tax system. This provided the possibility of inadvertent excise manufacture when the carbon price, and hence the fuel tax, changed.
The amendments ensure that the law works as intended. They have not been previously announced. They have nil revenue impact.
These amendments are intended to commence on 1 July 2012.
Schedule 3 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that the Government's policy to deny access to the low income tax offset for the unearned income of minors — such as dividends and interest — operates as intended. This measure was originally announced in the 2011-12 Budget and applies from the 2011-12 income year.
The amendments contained in this schedule will clarify that trust beneficiaries who are minors (that is, children aged under 18) cannot receive the benefit of the low income tax offset for unearned income earned through trust distributions. This will ensure consistency of treatment for all minors' unearned income — irrespective of whether it is earned directly or indirectly.
Schedule 4 provides income tax exemptions for clean energy advance payments for recipients of ABSTUDY; the Veterans' Children's Education Scheme; and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme.
This Schedule will also implement income tax exemptions for payments in lieu of the clean energy advance and supplements to recipients of Transitional Farm Family Payments; and Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payments.
An exemption for clean energy payments to other income support recipients, such as those to pensioners and Newstart recipients, have already been legislated and it is appropriate that all income support recipients be treated in the same manner.
Schedule 5 makes the taxation of employment termination payments fairer by scaling back concessions for large termination payments that are not linked to hardship, such as golden handshakes. These large termination payments are typically received by senior executives as part of their overall remuneration.
These amendments mean that, from 1 July 2012, the employment termination payment tax offset will only be available for that part of a termination payment that takes a person's total annual taxable income (including the termination payment) up to $180,000.
Payments related to hardship, such as genuine redundancy, invalidity or the death of an employee, are not affected by this measure.
Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
INCOME TAX (SEASONAL LABOUR MOBILITY PROGRAM WITHHOLDING TAX) BILL 2012
This Bill imposes withholding tax on income derived by non resident workers participating in the Seasonal Labour Mobility Program. Seasonal workers will be subject to a final withholding tax at the rate of 15 per cent. The change will apply with effect from 1 July 2012.
The Seasonal Labour Mobility Program is a whole-of-government strategy to advance Australia's engagement in the Pacific. The measure will increase the net amount of remittances to the Pacific Islander and East Timorese participants and reduce unnecessary compliance and administration costs.
This rate of tax will only apply to holders of a Special Program Visa (subclass 416) who are employed by 'approved employers' under the program.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (INCOME TAX RATES) BILL 2012
This Bill amends the personal tax rates for the ordinary taxable income of non residents for tax purposes. This amendment will ensure that these rates continue to align with those of Australian resident taxpayers, as has historically been the case.
From 1 July 2012, the first two personal marginal tax rate thresholds for non residents will be merged into a single threshold. The rate for this threshold will be linked to the second personal income tax rate for resident taxpayers.
Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I table two revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
NATIONAL HEALTH REFORM AMENDMENT (ADMINISTRATOR AND NATIONAL HEALTH FUNDING BODY) BILL 2012
This bill is the last instalment of the legislation to establish the national health reform bodies to give effect to the historic National Health Reform Agreement concluded by COAG on 2 August last year.
This Government has established the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care as a permanent body to provide authoritative advice on the safety and quality standards our health services should meet.
We have established the National Health Performance Authority to provide regular reports on the performance of our health care system at a local level.
We have established the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority to determine what the efficient price of hospital services is.
And this bill establishes the Administrator of the National Health Funding Pool to introduce the unparalleled transparency into public hospital funding that Australians require.
For far too long the dialogue between the Commonwealth and the States on public hospital funding has been characterised by mutual blame and recrimination, with accusations of removal of funds by one level of government when additional funds were put in by another.
Under this bill the Administrator will report monthly on how much money from which government goes to which local hospital network, and why, and we will then have that total transparency.
Under the National Health Reform Agreement the amount of Commonwealth funding to flow to a local hospital network will be calculated by the Administrator, multiplying the national efficient price determined by the Pricing Authority by the expected number of hospital services to be provided to work out how much the Commonwealth will pay for services funded on the basis of activity. The Administrator will also calculate how much Commonwealth funding should be provided for small rural hospitals and other services best covered under block funding arrangements.
The Administrator will advise the Commonwealth Treasurer, who will pay into the National Health Funding Pool the amounts calculated by the Administrator. The States will pay into the Pool their contribution for activity funded services, and the Administrator will then pay it to the appropriate hospital network.
The States will pay into a separate State Managed Fund their contribution to block funded services, and the Administrator will pay from the Funding Pool the Commonwealth contribution, which will then be paid by the States to hospital networks
And every month the Administrator will produce and publish a report showing how much has flowed into and out of the Funding Pool and the State Managed Funds, and the basis of the payments.
While there may still be debate about the adequacy of the funding, there will be no room for dispute about the facts of how much has gone where and why.
I would now like to turn to the specifics of the bill, which amends the National Health Reform Act 2011.
Under the Agreement the Administrator is to be appointed by the Commonwealth and each state and territory government. The same individual is to occupy nine separate statutory offices.
This position was agreed to address the concerns of some states that only an officer of that state should deal with state money.
The provisions concerning the appointment of the Administrator and the functions of the position which will be included in Part 5.2 of the amended act will appear in the same terms in legislation to be passed by this Parliament and by state and territory Parliaments.
They provide for the Health Minister to appoint the Administrator following agreement by the COAG Standing Council on Health on the individual to be appointed.
They also provide for the Chair of the Council to suspend the Administrator from office in all jurisdictions at the request of the Commonwealth Minister, or three state or territory Ministers. However, the suspension lapses after sixty days unless the Council agrees to continue it, or else terminate the appointment of the Administrator.
If the Council agrees to terminate the appointment, whether following a period of suspension or otherwise, all Ministers must act to remove the Administrator from office in their jurisdiction.
The Administrator may resign in writing to the Chair of the Council, who must then notify all other Council members.
The Chair of the Council also acts on behalf of all jurisdictions in appointing an acting Administrator when required, although the person appointed to act must be drawn from a panel consisting of people agreed by the Council.
The functions of the Administrator are to calculate the amount of Commonwealth funding under the Agreement and advise the Commonwealth Treasurer; oversee payments into State Pool Accounts within the National Health Funding Pool; make payments from the Pool Accounts at the direction of the state Ministers; and report upon the operations of the Pool Accounts and the State Managed Funds.
While state Ministers are to direct the Administrator to make payments from the Funding Pool, under the Agreement the Ministers cannot alter the distribution of Commonwealth funding from that calculated by the Administrator. Corresponding state legislation will contain a provision to that effect. Although such a provision cannot be included in Commonwealth legislation for Constitutional reasons, Commonwealth funding under the Federal Financial Relations Act will be conditional on states adhering to the requirements of the Agreement.
No Commonwealth Minister is able to direct the Administrator in the performance of his or her functions.
While the staff of the National Health Funding Body are to assist the Administrator in carrying out her or his functions, the Administrator is not entitled to delegate any functions.
This does not mean that the Administrator has to sit with a spreadsheet program calculating the amounts of Commonwealth funding. Rather, it means that Funding Body staff can carry out calculations, but the Administrator must approve the calculations before transmitting them to the Commonwealth Minister.
The existing financial management regimes of the Commonwealth or the states will not apply to the Administrator. Instead, he or she is required under the amended act to develop and apply appropriate financial management policies and procedures, and keep proper records of the operation of the State Pool Accounts.
As I noted earlier, the Administrator is to prepare monthly reports on payments into and out of State Pool Accounts and State Managed Funds, and the basis on which the payments were made.
The Administrator is to prepare special purpose financial statements on the operation of each State Pool Account, which will be audited by state Auditors-General, and then included in the Administrator's annual report, which will be tabled in this place.
The Administrator is to provide state Ministers with a copy of her or his advice to the Commonwealth Treasurer on the calculation of Commonwealth payments, and may provide other relevant information to Ministers. In addition, the Administrator must provide information to Ministers at their request.
Division 3 of Part 5.2 of the amended act contains a set of provisions intended to ensure the Constitutional validity of these arrangements in the light of the judgement of the High Court in the Hughes case in 2000 which dealt with state law imposing duties on Commonwealth officers. Similar provisions appear in legislation supporting other Commonwealth-State schemes, such as the Therapeutic Goods Act.
Part 5.3 of the amended act establishes the National Health Funding Body, with the sole function of assisting the Administrator in carrying out his or her functions.
The Funding Body is to be staffed under the Public Service Act, and together with its CEO will constitute an agency under that act.
The CEO is to be appointed by the Minister, but the Minister must consult with the Administrator in appointing the CEO, and in relation to other matters including termination, acting appointments, approval of outside employment, and determination of terms and conditions.
The government intends to make regulations prescribing the Funding Body as an inter-jurisdictional agency under Part 6A of the Financial Management and Accountability Act, ensuring that state Ministers will have access to information about the operations of the Funding Body on the same basis as the Commonwealth Minister.
The act currently contains provisions ensuring that information relating to the affairs of a person held by the existing statutory bodies is handled appropriately. These provisions are replicated in Part 5.4 of the amended act to apply to the Administrator and to officials of the Funding Body.
I should say that the inclusion of these provisions is essentially precautionary, as it is highly unlikely that the Administrator or the Funding Body will hold information about the affairs of a person.
The bill re-enacts as Chapter 6 the existing Chapter 5 of the act, which includes a number of miscellaneous provisions. The only amendment of substance in these provisions relates to the regulation making power, which includes a provision allowing regulations to be made modifying the operation of the Commonwealth administrative law regime as it applies to the Administrator or the Funding Body.
This is necessary to deal with the multi-jurisdictional nature of the Administrator. As an officer of nine jurisdictions, she or he would be subject to nine different freedom of information laws, ombudsman laws and so on.
State legislation establishing the office of the Administrator will dis-apply all relevant state laws, and adopt the Commonwealth laws. However, the Commonwealth laws are not suitable to apply as state laws without some modification.
For example, it is not clear that the exemption in section 34 of the FOI Act for Cabinet documents would apply to state Cabinet documents, in the absence of a modification to the that act. The conditional exemption in section 47B of the FOI Act applies to documents which if disclosed would cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a state, but does not address potential damage to relations between states. Similarly, the conditional exemption in section 47C of the FOI Act applies to documents which if disclosed would disclose matter in the nature of, or relating to, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of the Commonwealth government, but does not extend to state governments.
The regulation making power to be included in the amended act will allow the FOI and other acts to be amended to address these issues. State law will adopt the acts as modified by the regulations, ensuring that there will be a consistent and appropriate regime applying to the Administrator under both Commonwealth and state law.
The regulations may only be made with the agreement of state Ministers.
Finally, the bill includes transitional provisions dealing with the situation where not all jurisdictions pass equivalent legislation at the same time. The effect is to allow all jurisdictions to take part in a decision on the appointment of the Administrator, even if legislation has not been passed in all jurisdictions.
This legislation will allow the National Health Reform Agreement to begin operation on 1 July 2012.
The Agreement will result in vastly improved transparency about the performance of the health system at a local level, through the operations of the National Health Performance Authority. It provides for Commonwealth hospital funding based on an efficient price for hospital services, developed by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority at arm's length from Commonwealth and state governments.
And the legislation I am introducing today will allow for complete transparency about funding flows from the Commonwealth and the states down to local hospital networks.
As the Prime Minister said when the outline of these changes was agreed at COAG in February last year,
People want to know what is happening with the money that goes in to fund health. They do not want it beyond their line of sight; they do not want to wonder whether when one level of government is stepping up to putting more in, perhaps another level of government is taking some out.
This legislation solves that problem.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT (NATIONAL HEALTH REFORM) BILL 2012
The Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012 delivers a central component of the Gillard Government's National Health Reform.
Payment Arrangements
This bill amends the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 to enable the Commonwealth to make payments into the new National Health Funding Pool, in accordance with the National Health Reform Agreement.
The new arrangements will see Commonwealth and State Government funding for Local Hospital Networks channelled through a single pool, the National Health Funding Pool, a joint intergovernmental funding authority, with transparent reporting of both Commonwealth and State funding to individual Local Hospital Networks.
Under the National Health Reform Agreement, Local Hospital Networks will be funded for the services they provide and funding will be transparently reported.
In some circumstances, such as in rural and remote areas, block funding will be provided through the States to ensure all Australians receive appropriate access to health services.
The bill also provides for the new payment arrangements associated with the transitioning of responsibilities for aged care and disability services.
The bill includes some minor technical amendments to the GST determination. These changes will not impact on the total amount of revenue paid to the States and Territories.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
These bills are being introduced together and after the debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012 and move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2012
The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012 reflects the government's commitment to more effective regulation by cutting red tape and creating clearer Commonwealth laws.
The bill will amend eight portfolio acts and repeal one act entirely.
It contains no significant policy changes, but the amendments will provide consistency, amend outdated or unclear provisions and reduce the likelihood of reader confusion. The bill responds to industry requests for reform of existing regulation. It will streamline existing administrative arrangements and improve response times.
The bill will amend requirements of the Label Integrity Program under the wine legislation. The program aims to ensure truthfulness of label claims on vintage, variety or geographical indication of wine. It relies on accurate record keeping so that wines and label claims can be audited effectively.
Retailers have demonstrated the need for differentiation of record keeping requirements between producers and retailers and the proposed amendments are supported by retailers, wholesalers and the wine industry.
The proposed amendments will reduce the record keeping requirements of people who supply or receive wine goods that are packaged for sale to a consumer. Suppliers and retailers who do not change or affect any label claims about wine goods will be required to provide the Wine Australia Corporation auditors with details of the manufacturer or supplier of the wine goods, rather than all the details to substantiate vintage, variety or geographical indication label claims. This maintains the integrity of the program, while meeting the practical requirements of suppliers and retailers.
For the purposes of defining 'vintage' on a wine label, the bill will amend the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980 to assist producers by ensuring grapes grown in the same growing season can be labelled with the same vintage year. For example, producers will now be able to label wine made from grapes harvested from 1 September 2012 through to 31 August 2013 as a 2013 wine, not a 2014 wine.
The bill will amend the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to ensure that provisions are consistent and wording is clear. The amendments will correct a grammatical error and remove redundant wording in provisions relating to directions to close a fishery, or a part of a fishery. They will also make compliance with a direction to close a fishery a condition on all types of statutory fishing concessions. The amendments will better reflect the intention of the provisions, clarify requirements and simplify the administration of the act.
The amendments to the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 will correct a drafting error made in an earlier amending act so that agreed co-management arrangements can be implemented. The drafting error applied a delegation of powers provision to section 93 rather than section 92. Once the provision is applied correctly to section 92, co-management arrangements—in which stakeholders will assist the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to perform powers and functions for the sustainable management of fisheries—can be implemented.
The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 is being amended to allow the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry to consider all requests for the remission of late levy payment penalties. At present, only the portfolio minister can remit penalties exceeding $5000. The proposed amendment mirrors efficient penalty remission arrangements for the Dairy Adjustment Levy. The process will be more streamlined and response times will be improved for levy payers. Levy payers will still be able to approach the minister to review a decision made by the secretary.
To assist with clearer Commonwealth legislation, the bill will make the following technical amendments.
It will re-number an alphabetical list in the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 to remove any doubt about whether the list is incorrect or incomplete.
It will replace the United States spelling of 'authorized' with the Australian spelling of 'authorised' in the Export Control Act 1982 and the Quarantine Act 1908. The Australian spelling is the preferred style for Commonwealth legislation and these changes improve readability by ensuring consistent spelling throughout the two acts.
It will remove redundant text in the Fisheries Management Act 1991, including several cross-references to provisions that have been repealed. These amendments will promote consistency in the act and reduce the likelihood of reader confusion.
In line with legislative drafting protocols, it will remove specific references to departments and secretaries in the Farm Household Support Act 1992. This will mean any references to department or secretary are related to the correct portfolio responsible for administering the act and will reduce the need for future amendments arising from changes to the Administrative Arrangements Orders.
The bill will also repeal an entire act—the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952. The War Service Land Settlement Scheme commenced in 1945 to assist returned soldiers into farming after World War II. Authority for the scheme was established under Commonwealth legislation. The Australian Government has negotiated the sale and transfer of the scheme to each of the states, and now the Commonwealth legislation is redundant and suitable for repeal. The scheme served its purpose but has generally outgrown its original intent. Repeal of this act marks the end of an era and closes a chapter in Australia's history.
AVIATION TRANSPORT SECURITY AMENDMENT (SCREENING) BILL 2012
On the 25th of December 2009, a passenger attempted to bomb North West Airlines flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit.
The would-be bomber successfully smuggled a viable improvised explosive device through aviation security screening and onto the aircraft without being detected.
The device, which was concealed inside the passenger's underwear, contained no metallic components and was therefore able to be carried through a walk through metal detector without triggering any alarm.
This event highlighted a significant vulnerability in global aviation security screening practices, including Australia.
In response to this incident, on the 9th of February 2010, the Government announced a package of measures to strengthen Australia's aviation security.
This package included $28.5 million to assist the aviation industry to introduce a range of optimal technologies, including body scanners, multi-view X-ray machines, bottled liquid scanners and additional explosive trace detection units at international screening points.
These new technologies will mitigate current vulnerabilities in the aviation security screening regime.
The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 will support the upcoming introduction of body scanners at Australian international airports.
This will ensure that Australian travellers are afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism, bringing Australia into line with countries such as the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
The Bill will provide flexibility in the future for the Government to introduce new screening tools as improvements are made to existing technologies.
It will also ensure that these technologies are used in such a way that achieves both a maximum security outcome and minimal impact on passenger facilitation.
It is important to note that the new body scanner technology will operate alongside existing walk through metal detectors at airports.
This bill contains four amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 that allow for the introduction of body scanners and enhance current screening procedures.
The first amendment will ensure that passenger through-put rates are not unnecessarily affected by the introduction of body scanners and other technologies.
It will allow aviation screening officers to assume that a person who presents at an aviation security screening point consents to any screening procedure, with the exception of a frisk search, unless the person expressly states their refusal to undergo a particular screening procedure.
This measure will minimise the impact of body scanners on passenger facilitation by removing the requirement for screening officers to ask every passenger whether or not they consent to undergo a body scan.
It will also increase facilitation rates for screening procedures already in use at aviation security screening points, such as explosive trace detection.
It is essential that passengers are fully informed of their rights and obligations at a screening point.
As such, the Government is making changes to the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to mandate appropriate signage requirements at screening points.
These signs will inform passengers that they will be taken to have consented to screening procedures, with the exception of a frisk search, once they enter a screening point unless they specifically indicate otherwise.
The signs will take a form similar to those currently used to inform passengers of requirements regarding the carriage of liquid, aerosol and gel products through screening points at Australia's international airports.
The second amendment will allow the Aviation Transport Security Regulations to prescribe persons that must not pass through a screening point.
This will allow for a subsequent change to the Regulations, whereby a person who refuses to undergo a screening procedure they have been randomly selected for will not be granted clearance and will be unable to pass through the screening point.
The benefit of introducing body scanning technology is that it can identify a variety of sophisticated threats that cannot be detected by existing screening technology.
Australia's current security environment is such that we are vulnerable to these types of threats.
Walk through metal detectors and the style of frisk search currently used at Australian airports simply cannot provide the same security outcome that a body scanner can.
The only method of screening that could provide a similar security outcome to that of a body scanner is the type of invasive body search that is conducted in the US.
The Government has been resolute in not introducing invasive body searches as part of our airport security arrangements.
For this reason and in the interests of security and privacy, passengers selected for body scanner screening cannot choose inferior or significantly intrusive alternatives.
Accordingly, the Government has decided that a no opt out policy will be enforced in relation to screening at airports.
As such, the third amendment to this Bill will be to repeal the current provision in the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 that allows passengers to request a frisk search as an alternative to another screening procedure.
This policy will not only apply to passengers, but also airport and airline staff.
Provision will be retained so that persons who have a physical or medical condition that prevents them from being screened by a body scanner can be screened by alternative means appropriate to their circumstances.
The Government has carefully considered what can be done to alleviate concerns that passengers may have about being screened by body scanners.
A voluntary body scanner trial was conducted at Sydney and Melbourne international airports last year.
Over 23 000 passengers volunteered to go through the body scanners during the trial period.
Market research conducted during the trial found that a great majority of passengers who underwent a body scan reported a positive experience.
Nonetheless, the Government has been focused on ensuring that health concerns regarding body scanners are understood and addressed.
There are two types of body scanning technology used for aviation security screening internationally; millimetre-wave and backscatter X-ray.
After consideration of the merits of both technologies and extensive consultation with relevant federal and state government agencies, including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Department of Health and Ageing, state health agencies and international partner agencies, the Government decided that only body scanners that use millimetre-wave technology will be used in Australia.
Active millimetre-wave body scanners use safe non-ionising radiation and produce emissions well below the permissible limits set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
One body scan emits 10 000 times less radio frequency energy than a single mobile phone call.
Health and safety information about millimetre-wave body scanners is available on my Department's website.
The second key area of concern regarding body scanners is in relation to privacy.
The Department of Infrastructure and Transport has consulted extensively with privacy and civil society groups in order to address any privacy concerns.
These consultations have been productive and have allowed us to strike the right balance between security and privacy.
Importantly, only body scanners equipped with automatic threat detection technology will be used.
This technology has the ability to identify areas of concerns on a generic human representation, similar to that of a 'stick figure'. The operator will not view raw or 'naked' images such as those produced by first generation body scanning technology.
In addition, body scanners that are introduced in Australia will not be allowed to store or transmit any information or data.
My Department has worked closely with the Office of the Australian Information Commission (OAIC) to address stakeholder issues.
Two round-table discussions have been held with various privacy and civil society groups to discuss the impact of body scanners.
Stakeholders were also invited to attend the body scanner trial last year, giving them the opportunity to view the body scanner in operation.
A comprehensive privacy impact assessment was prepared in consultation with the OAIC.
A draft of this assessment was released for public comment in September last year.
The final amendment will list, but not limit, the equipment that can be used for screening.
The list contains equipment already in use at screening points in Australia, including metal detection and explosive trace detection equipment, and also includes body scanning equipment to clarify that the use of such equipment in aviation security screening is lawful.
These amendments will ensure that Australia continues to enjoy a robust and effective aviation security screening regime.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (DIGITAL TELEVISION) BILL 2012
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2012 introduces amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to facilitate earlier access, in particular circumstances, to the digital commercial satellite television services known as the Viewer Access Satellite Television service, or VAST.
The VAST service is a first class direct-to-home digital TV satellite service which covers all of Australia. For the first time, viewers not served by terrestrial transmitters have access to the full range of digital television services. Every Australian can now access the full range of commercial and national free-to-air digital television services. This includes the digital-only channels Go!, GEM, 7Two, 7Mate, ONE, and Eleven. As at 1 April 2012, over 60,000 households in remote and regional Australia had been connected to VAST.
However, viewers in metropolitan and regional areas that will never receive adequate commercial digital television terrestrial reception are currently ineligible to apply to access VAST until six months before switchover in their licence area.
This Bill will allow the administrator of a VAST conditional access scheme to specify areas, known as 'open access areas', where viewers will not be able to receive adequate reception of digital terrestrial commercial television services. Viewers residing in open access areas will be automatically entitled to immediate access to VAST.
The Bill will also amend the way in which the scheme administrator for a VAST conditional access scheme assesses a person's eligibility to access VAST.
Before providing access to VAST, the scheme administrator must assess if viewers have adequate reception of 'applicable digital terrestrial commercial television broadcasting services' (or 'applicable services'). The current definition of applicable services is restricted to those services provided by commercial television broadcasting licensees. A retransmission service provided by a third party provider does not constitute an 'applicable service'.
The commercial television broadcasters have agreed to convert to digital a number of analog self-help retransmission sites that were previously operated by local councils or other community groups. In most circumstances, the transmitters operating at these sites are licensed to Regional Broadcasting Australia, the peak body representing all regional and remote commercial broadcasters.
The amendments in this Bill will allow a scheme administrator to take account of services provided by organisations which represent commercial broadcasters, such as the Regional Broadcasting Australia, when assessing whether a viewer has adequate reception of 'applicable services'.
The Bill also contains minor amendments to allow broadcasters operating in the Remote Central and Eastern Australia licence areas to use services from VAST as a source of programming for their terrestrial transmitters and to authorise viewers in the Territory of Christmas Island and the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the Coral Sea Islands Territory and Norfolk Island to access VAST if they choose.
Finally, in 2008 the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy announced a firm timetable for the switch off of analog signals. Regional Victoria, South Australia, and Queensland have all switched to digital only television and regional New South Wales will follow later this year.
On 2 November 2009, the Minister determined that digital switchover would occur in the Brisbane TV1 and Perth TV1 licence areas on 30 June 2013, and in the Adelaide TV1, Melbourne TV1 and Sydney TV1 licence areas on 31 December 2013.
Following further consultation with broadcasters, it is apparent that the switchover dates in all of the metropolitan licence areas are likely to require change. These variations in the switchover dates are to facilitate a staggered approach to the transition to digital television in metropolitan areas to ensure both Government assistance schemes and broadcaster engineering resources are available and appropriately managed to achieve digital switchover by the end of 2013. For example, the broadcasting industry has recently requested that the switchover date in the Adelaide licence area be varied to a date in the first half of 2013.
In some cases, these amended dates could fall outside the maximum variations currently permitted by the Broadcasting Services Act. At the moment, where the Minister has made a digital switchover determination, the end date for the simulcast period can be varied by up to three months before or after the originally determined date.
The Bill will allow the Minister to vary the date for a licence area's digital switchover to any other future date the Minister specifies, provided that the date determined occurs before 31 December 2013. Similar amendments will be made in respect of digital-only local market area determinations to allow the Minister to vary the date when a local market area becomes a digital-only local market area.
The Government is committed to working with local communities on the switchover to digital television. It will continue to set and publicise the dates well in advance of switchover just as it has done in other switchover areas.
CLEAN ENERGY FINANCE CORPORATION BILL 2012
The Gillard Government has passed historic reforms to build a clean energy future which will strengthen our economy and protect our environment.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a key part of the Government's plan. It will encourage private investment and help overcome financial barriers to commercialising and deploying cleaner energy technologies.
There is global recognition of the importance of moving to cleaner energy sources. Due to its endowment and use of low cost fossil fuels, Australia is a late starter in the transformation to clean technology.
The Clean Energy Future plan, along with the Renewable Energy Target, will cut carbon pollution and drive investment and innovation in clean energy technologies. This will ensure our economy and industries remain competitive in a world that is becoming carbon constrained.
The transformation of our economy will be most evident in the electricity sector. It is expected that the sector will over time move away from coal-fired generation to renewables, with renewable energy growing from 10 per cent to 40 per cent of the generation mix by 2050, and conventional coal-fired generation falling from 70 per cent to below 10 per cent.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector to support this transformation, removing barriers that would otherwise prevent the financing of projects.
Several factors can inhibit the financing of clean energy projects, including current global financial conditions, the complex nature of Australia's electricity markets, the cost of renewable energy, the preference of investment institutions for listed assets and a limited track record of returns.
Given the complexities involved, the Gillard Government appointed an Expert Review Panel to design the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The Review was chaired by Ms Jillian Broadbent, an eminent Australian with extensive experience in the financial sector.
The Review recommended a framework for how the corporation should operate. The Government is implementing the recommendations through this Bill.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be independent from government, with no ability for the government to direct the Corporation in relation to specific projects for investment. This will ensure an independent decision making process.
The Corporation will operate based on three principles:
Firstly, the Corporation is a mechanism to help mobilise private investment in renewable energy, low-emissions and energy efficiency projects and technologies in Australia. The Corporation will also invest in manufacturing businesses that provide inputs to the clean energy sector.
The Corporation will focus on catalysing private finance into Australia's clean energy sector. It will provide financial products and structures that address the financial barriers currently inhibiting private investment. Such facilitation is critical in transitioning the Australian energy market.
To ensure the effectiveness of this capital mobilisation the Corporation is expected to require private co-investment in projects. It is unlikely to ever be a sole financier. This approach will build investor experience and confidence in the clean energy sector.
The Corporation will invest at least half of its funds in renewable energy technologies. The other half will be available to fund energy efficiency and low-emissions technologies.
Secondly, the Corporation will apply a commercial filter when making its investment decisions. It will focus on projects and technologies at the later stages of development, consistent with the Report of the Expert Review Panel.
The commercial filter will apply private sector skills and disciplines to investment selection. Having a public policy purpose, the Corporation has different financial risk/return requirements and values any positive externalities from investments. For a given financial return, the Corporation may take on higher risk and, for a given level of risk, due to positive externalities, may accept a lower financial return.
Thirdly, the Corporation has the capacity to offer concessional finance and directly influence financial barriers that inhibit the financing of this sector. The individuality of each project necessitates a case-by-case approach.
The Corporation can tailor concessionality in each case and apply it through availability, tenor or cost of finance. In setting the terms, the Corporation will provide only the least generous terms required for a proposal to go ahead.
Guaranteed funding
The funding that the Corporation will receive for making investments is set out in this Bill. This will provide long-term support and continuity to the clean energy sector.
The Corporation will receive $2 billion per year for five years from 2013-14 through the special appropriation in this Bill. The Corporation will also be provided three years of funding through the annual appropriation bills to assist with the establishment and operations of the Corporation.
The Corporation is intended to be self-sustaining once mature. That is, it won't require further assistance from the Budget. Rather, the Corporation's profits and funds returned from its investments will be available for reinvestment.
To allow the Corporation to focus on its primary function of investing in the clean energy sector, a Special Account is being created to manage surplus funds and limit the Corporation's need to undertake a cash management function.
This Bill establishes mechanisms for flows of payments between the Special Account and the Corporation that guarantees access to funds as needed to undertake its investment function.
Board
This Bill establishes the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as a Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
The Corporation will be managed by an independent board comprised of experts in areas such as banking, finance, economics and energy markets to ensure a robust and rigorous organisation.
The Board will be appointed by the Government and will be responsible for the management, operational and investment decisions of the Corporation.
The Board will be responsible for appointing the chief executive officer, who will take on the day-to-day administration of the Corporation under the directions of the Board
The staff of the Corporation will be well experienced to provide the necessary support to the Board and CEO to determine the best investments and manage tax payers money appropriately.
Investment mandate
The Government will provide the Board with an investment mandate that, combined with the legislation, will set the parameters for its management of investments. This allows the Board to develop its own investment strategy, in line with the Government's broad directions.
Similar to the Future Fund, this Bill ensures the Board is consulted on the investment mandate and their response tabled in parliament.
The Government expects the Corporation to apply a commercial filter when making its investment decisions. Investments will focus on projects beyond the research and development stage, have a positive rate of return and have the capacity to repay capital. This approach will ensure the Corporation invests responsibly and manages risk to achieve a target rate of return and ultimately be financially self-sufficient.
Technologies with a track record have generally had fewer problems accessing finance as the financial market has experience with their risk/return metrics. As such the Corporation is not expected to fund these projects. One example of this would be conventional gas which may technically be eligible for funding as a low-emission technology
The Government also intends on requiring the Corporation to apply Australian Industry Participation Plans through the investment mandate. Industry Participation Plans ensure Australian industry is afforded full, fair and reasonable opportunity to participate in projects.
As a part of the Clean Energy Future plan, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will complement other Australian Government policies and programs. This includes the Renewable Energy Target, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), the Clean Technology Investment Program and the Clean Technology Innovation Program.
It will be particularly important for the Corporation and ARENA to maintain an active ongoing dialogue as projects funded by ARENA provide a potential pipeline of projects for the Corporation.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will bring to bear the utmost rigour in assessing its investments, but will also give effect to its important public policy objectives by facilitating transactions where financial barriers are inhibiting the mobilisation of private sector funds.
Passing the legislation in this sitting will enable the Corporation to undertake the necessary preparations to commence its investment operations from 1 July 2013.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME) BILL 2012
The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2012 will amend the National Health Act 1953 to support the operation of a more efficient Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
The PBS is a major Government health program with expenditure expected to reach $9.7 billion in 2012-13. The Bill reflects the Gillard government's commitment to on-going improvement of Australia's health system, to ensure that every health dollar continues to be used as effectively as possible.
The Bill is also in keeping with the Statement of Principles signed by the Government with industry and consumer organisations in September 2011.
The main amendments in this Bill relate to the pricing structure for PBS medicines. From 1 October 2012, PBS prices will be expressed at ex manufacturer level based on one price for each pharmaceutical item. This is instead of pricing at approved price to pharmacists which includes the ex manufacturer price and wholesale margin. This will create uniform pricing for all brands of a medicine across different PBS programs and mechanisms of supply.
The new pricing structure will be carried through to all functions involving PBS prices, including calculating the Commonwealth price for subsidies, provisions for price disclosure, and applying price reductions.
[Current arrangements - nature of the problem]
Under the current legislation, the price of a PBS medicine includes a margin for the wholesaler, but this margin varies depending on the price of the medicine. A percentage rate applies for less expensive items and changes to a flat fee for very expensive items over $1,000. The margin also varies depending on where a medicine is supplied. For example, the margin is different for supply of a medicine through a community pharmacy and a hospital. For some PBS supplies, there is no wholesale margin. In this circumstance, a notional approved price to pharmacists is used to satisfy the requirement to price at that level.
This is further confused by different PBS pricing calculations applying at different points in the pricing process. For example, statutory price reductions apply to the approved price to pharmacists, but price disclosure calculations take place at manufacturer price level.
In essence, the difficulties arise because the approved price to pharmacists is not at the beginning of the pricing sequence and is no longer suitable as the core PBS pricing level.
This means that pricing amounts continually need to be converted administratively between the two pricing levels. This is cumbersome and can create inconsistencies due to rounding and increases the risk of error in PBS listing and pricing processes.
[Amendments]
The amendments in the Bill remove the concept of approved price to pharmacists, as the level at which pricing agreements are made, and replace it with approved ex manufacturer price – the price set at the beginning of the process.
In doing so, only one ex manufacturer price will need to be agreed or determined for a brand of pharmaceutical item - by reference to the quantity in the lowest PBS pack size for any brand of the item. The price for different pack sizes of any brand will then be calculated from the approved ex manufacturer price as a proportional ex manufacturer price.
There are many provisions and functions in the Act that currently rely on approved price to pharmacists. They will work equally well, or better, using ex manufacturer prices.
For example, the Bill also amends provisions for calculating the Commonwealth price, the 16 per cent price reductions for new brand listings, and price disclosure, so they operate using ex manufacturer prices. However, the processes for undertaking those calculations remain effectively the same.
The Commonwealth price includes the manufacturer price, wholesale margin, pharmacy or hospital mark-ups, and pharmacy dispensing and other fees. It is the amount which determines the government subsidy and the Safety Net amount for the patient.
Wholesale mark-ups will continue to be based on the pricing provisions in the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. They will be included in the existing legislative instrument that determines the manner for calculating the Commonwealth price. In moving from approved price to pharmacists to approved ex manufacturer price, the pharmacy level price which includes the wholesale mark up will now be referred as the price to pharmacists or 'PTP'.
The new pricing arrangements will still allow for a premium or special patient contribution to be claimed by companies in addition to the amount the Commonwealth is willing to agree for subsidy. As is currently the case, this becomes the additional amount payable by the patient for higher priced brands.
[Transitional – convert to ex-manufacturer prices]
Transitional provisions in the Bill set out the method for converting current PBS prices to an ex manufacturer amount. This involves the applicable wholesale margin being subtracted from each price in force on the day before the commencement date.
For over 98 per cent of the 2,400 pharmaceutical items on the PBS, the conversion calculation will result in a single ex manufacturer price for the quantity in the lowest pack size. For those items, the converted price is expected to become the approved ex manufacturer price.
Indicative ex manufacturer prices calculated using this method will be made available publicly on the PBS website by the end of May, with notice of this being provided to all companies and other stakeholders. This gives companies over six weeks to review prices and discuss them with the Department before they need to be finalised for 1 October 2012.
A small number of conversion calculations from current prices will result in multiple prices, so adjustments will be necessary to achieve a uniform ex manufacturer price. This will occur for around 40 pharmaceutical items, which is less than two per cent of total PBS items. For many of those 40 items, the difference in price will be only one or two cents.
The legislation provides that where a price change is required, the new price may be negotiated with companies or, failing this, a default price will apply.
All pharmaceutical companies with a listed brand of an item requiring any price adjustment will be contacted by the Department and invited to negotiate a new price on a case-by-case basis.
The transitional arrangements are designed to achieve new prices that are as close to equivalent to current prices as possible, either directly or through new agreements.
There are no savings associated with this proposal. The intention is that the move to the new pricing structure will have a neutral effect on PBS prices overall, and no impact on PBS expenditure.
For the vast majority of negotiations, the Commonwealth will advise companies of a weighted average price for the item based on prices and volumes of supply of different pack sizes or supply via different PBS programs. Once a new price is agreed it will apply for all brands.
The weighted price has not been legislated as the new price for these items because it would not produce the best result in all situations. Importantly, it would not provide the necessary flexibility for negotiating based on individual circumstances where appropriate. The aim is not to get a price reduction, but to arrive at an average across existing prices that is most representative of the effective PBS price and, thus, give the most neutral pricing impact.
However, for the PBS to operate, all listed products must have a known price. In the event that a price is not negotiated for an item, a default price which is the lowest of the converted ex manufacturer prices for the item will apply.
In a very small number of cases, about eleven items, the method in the Bill does not arrive at the current lowest ex manufacturer price. For these items, the default will be set in the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations.
Reliance on a default price is not the Government's preferred method. The Bill makes clear that a negotiated price will always take precedence over a converted default price. Nonetheless, the default provision is important and necessary to ensure continuity for the PBS.
Once an approved ex manufacturer price is in place, prices for different pack sizes of those items will be calculated proportionally. For all brands, the price for the same quantity is the same.
[Premiums on transition]
Where brands currently have claimed prices resulting in premiums or special patient contributions, those premiums are expected to remain very similar to current amounts. Claimed prices will be converted to ex manufacturer level by applying a change equivalent to the change in the approved price.
This is the same approach used for premiums affected by statutory price reductions and price disclosure. Companies can discuss with the Department any impact on a premium resulting from a converted price.
If a new ex manufacturer price is negotiated for an item, the existing premium for a brand can also be adjusted.
Single brand combination pharmaceutical items will need new price agreements as there are special considerations when pricing these medicines. The new prices will be negotiated taking into account the converted ex manufacturer portion of the component drug prices.
[In keeping with agreements]
The Government understands the importance of the agreements it has with pharmaceutical industry, consumer, wholesaler, and pharmacy bodies.
When the expanded price disclosure arrangements were put in place, it was as a result of the policies negotiated with industry in the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and Medicines Australia.
Consistent with this Government's approach to partnering with industry, the amendments in this Bill formed part of the 2011 Statement of principles of commitment between stakeholders. This was signed by the Government, the Consumers Health Forum, the Generic Medicines Industry Association, and Medicines Australia.
The amendments in this Bill are in keeping with those agreements and honour commitments made in good faith. The transitional arrangements regarding negotiation of prices are true to the method described in the Statement of principles.
[Timing]
Each year there are generally three price change dates, April, August and December.
Transitioning to the new structure in October, a month that is not normally subject to pricing changes, will reduce complexity for industry and provide transparency for any price differences.
In the event that a company wishes to pursue a price that is different from the 1 October pricing outcome, they will of course be able to use the usual price change processes for 1 December 2012.
[Relevance of the changes – a better more efficient PBS]
This Bill recognises that pricing practices that have grown up with the PBS and served us well in the past are no longer the best fit for the many different subsidy and supply arrangements in use now.
The changes will support improved pricing practices generally, and more efficient application of price disclosure across an increasing number of PBS medicines.
The Bill also contains a technical change which will improve the efficiency of listing medicines on the PBS for supply only via PBS prescriber bags.
[Industry cooperation and acknowledgement]
This legislation is due in no small part to the commitment shown by the pharmaceutical industry to support pricing changes needed to improve the efficiency of the PBS pricing structure. It also reflects the support of consumer, wholesaler, and pharmacy groups.
Implementation will rely on Government and industry working together to achieve the outcomes needed to fulfil the undertakings given on both sides in the agreements.
I have asked the Department to work with pharmaceutical companies so that, in the relatively small number of cases where prices need to change, the effects are shared between companies, and with Government, as evenly as possible.
[Summary – efficiency & benefits]
Sound pricing arrangements are vital to the PBS. In effect, the pharmaceutical industry has always used ex-manufacturer prices. There are benefits for the Government and users if the PBS does the same.
The new pricing structure will improve the application of current PBS policies with no change to the operation of the Scheme for patients, pharmacies and suppliers. There is no effect on PBS funding, on the medicines listed on the Scheme, nor access to them.
However, the benefits from better, more efficient PBS practices will flow on indirectly to all users of the PBS – and that is a good outcome for everyone.
I am confident that, based on the goodwill shown thus far, that result will be delivered.
NATIONAL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING REGULATOR (CHARGES) BILL 2012
The establishment of the National Vocational Education and Training (VET) Regulator on 1 July 2011 was a significant milestone. Fragmented regulation across nine regulators has been streamlined and a more nationally consistent and rigorous approach taken to enforcing standards in the VET sector.
The National VET Regulator, known as the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) is established under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulation Act 2011 (the NVETR Act). The new regulatory framework was developed in consultation with those who stood to be most affected by the changes. State and territory regulators, industry and RTOs all contributed their ideas and concerns during the consultation period undertaken in 2010.
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed ASQA would operate on a cost recovery basis and ASQA's cost recovery arrangements were subject to extensive consultation in 2011. The feedback from those consultations were extremely helpful in designing the final fee and charge structure and ensuring that the new cost arrangements are appropriate for the sector.
A Cost Recovery Impact Statement covering the period from ASQA's commencement on 1 July last year to 30 June 2014 has been publicly available on ASQA's website since April 2011. That statement clearly outlined ASQA's proposed fee and charge structure and the need for the Bill I introduce today.
The purpose of the bill I introduce today, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Bill 2012, is to support ASQA's cost recovery arrangements by enabling it to recover reasonable costs and expenses related to additional compliance activities that are not application-based, including compliance audits and complaint investigations. Application-based fees are authorised by the NVETR Act.
I now turn to the specifics of the Bill.
Object
One of ASQA's key functions is to encourage and monitor provider compliance with registration standards – training providers must be able to demonstrate compliance at all times.
The main method by which ASQA monitors compliance is by conducting compliance audits. ASQA also investigates complaints it receives about the performance of training providers.
This Bill will enable ASQA to recover reasonable costs and expenses associated with these additional monitoring activities.
This is in line with Australian Government cost recovery policy and part of ASQA's implementation path to full cost recovery by 2014-15.
Compliance audits
It is necessary for ASQA to conduct compliance audits to ensure ongoing compliance with the VET Quality Framework and identify issues relating to the quality of VET.
ASQA conducts a risk assessment on all registered training organisations (RTO) and this risk assessment is used to determine whether to conduct a compliance audit. Providers who have been assessed as high-risk will receive more rigorous monitoring by ASQA.
Compliance audits require a significant regulatory effort. This Bill provides that, where the ASQA undertakes such an audit, a charge is payable for the audit and – where the audit is conducted outside of Australia – any other reasonable expenses incurred.
Audit compliance charges will represent the resources required to effectively audit a provider.
Complaint Investigations
Complaints provide important information about the performance of RTOs and their compliance with standards for registration.
ASQA's process for investigating complaints against an RTO will improve stakeholder confidence in the VET sector. Students, employers, training personnel, parents, industry or any member of the community may lodge a complaint with the National VET Regulator if they are not satisfied with the quality of training delivered by an RTO.
This Bill enables the ASQA to charge RTOs for complaint investigations. Charges only apply where the complaint is substantiated by ASQA. In this circumstance, charges will be payable for the costs and expenses of conducting the investigation, any compliance audit conducted as part of the process and if the investigation is conducted outside of Australia, any other reasonable expenses incurred.
Conclusion
The National VET Regulator has been established with the powers to examine quality concerns in all areas of the VET sector. It is important that the National VET Regulator is properly resourced in order to conduct its functions thoroughly and deliver high-quality services. This is needed to ensure more robust regulation which will lead to better training outcomes.
A core function of the National VET Regulator is to encourage and monitor compliance of the VET sector. It is appropriate that the costs of ensuring a quality VET system are borne by the businesses that benefit from the system.
PAID PARENTAL LEAVE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DAD AND PARTNER PAY AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2012
This bill extends the Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme to include dad and partner pay, a new payment for eligible working fathers and other eligible partners.
Other amendments made by this bill provide more clarity and consistency to the Paid Parental Leave scheme, and make consequential amendments to the Fair Work legislation.
Last year, Australia caught up with the rest of the developed world when this Labor Government delivered our first national, government-funded Paid Parental Leave scheme.
It was this Labor Government that asked the Productivity Commission to inquire into the benefits of paid parental leave.
It was this Labor Government that delivered Australia's first national scheme.
But it was the thousands of Australian women, and men – spanning generations – who fought the battle and won the fight for this fundamental workplace entitlement.
Paid Parental Leave gives eligible working parents up to 18 weeks' parental leave pay at the National Minimum Wage – currently about $590 a week before tax.
It gives working parents the chance to stay at home to care for and bond with their newborn in those critical first months of a child's development.
For many low-paid, casual and part-time working women, this is the first time they have had access to this sort of support.
And more than 150,000 families across the country are already benefiting from the Gillard Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme.
When you take some time off work to care for your new baby, you want to know that you can focus on the time with your child and not on the household budget.
You want to know that you can take some time off work without losing touch with the workplace.
Because of the Paid Parental Leave scheme – delivered by this Labor Government – Australian families no longer have to choose between making ends meet and taking time off to spend with a new baby.
This was a historic reform. It took a Labor Government to do it – and today we build on it.
The bill being introduced today delivers on a 2010 election commitment to give Australian dads and other eligible partners the chance to also have some time off from work to support mums and partners in the care of their baby – right from the start.
Dad and Partner Pay will give eligible fathers and partners two weeks' pay at the rate of the National Minimum Wage.
It will be available to eligible fathers and partners – including adopting parents and parents in same-sex couples – who care for a child born or adopted from 1 January 2013.
This means that, from next year, eligible families welcoming a new child into the world can access up to 20 weeks' payments of parental leave pay and dad and partner pay from the Gillard Government.
We know that it isn't just new mothers who need that time to form important bonds with a new baby.
Dads and partners need that chance too – so families can be together after the birth of a child.
We know that most fathers do currently take some time off work around the time of the birth, but that this time is usually short and most have to use non-parental leave – such as annual leave – to do so.
New fathers and partners often have to balance their responsibilities as the main source of family income after the birth of their child with wanting to spend more time with their new baby and wanting to support their partner.
Some families can face extra challenges in balancing the budget when a child is born, including casual employees without annual leave entitlements and self-employed people such as business owners, tradespeople and people working on the family farm.
Dad and partner pay will change that for thousands of Australian families.
For the first time, thousands of parents will be able to spend time as a family, bonding with their new baby and supporting their partner, in those precious first weeks.
Like Paid Parental Leave, dad and partner pay will be available to eligible full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal, contract and self-employed workers.
The work test and residency requirements for dad and partner pay will be consistent with those for Paid Parental Leave. Dad and partner pay will also have the same income test as for Paid Parental Leave.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, the payment will be available in addition to any employer-funded paid leave. Eligible fathers and partners must be caring for the child – either as the primary carer or jointly caring with the other parent – and must not be working or on paid leave during the period they receive the payment.
This will encourage dads and other partners to take more time off to care for their newborn in those first few months, confident that they have the financial support to do so.
Eligible fathers and partners will receive dad and partner pay from the Family Assistance Office in the Department of Human Services, and claims for the payment can be made from 1 October this year.
Dad and partner pay will be available to fathers and partners who meet the eligibility requirements, regardless of whether the mother or primary carer has been in paid work or at home before the birth or adoption.
A father may be eligible for dad and partner pay even if a mother is not receiving parental leave pay. Families eligible for dad and partner pay may also continue to receive other family assistance payments such as baby bonus and family tax benefit.
However, dad and partner pay cannot be transferred to the primary carer (usually the mother) of the child. This 'use it or lose it' provision will encourage fathers and other partners to take more time off work, and signals to employers that a father's role in caring for a new baby is important.
Eligible fathers and partners who are the primary carers of their children will be able to receive both dad and partner pay and any parental leave pay transferred from the mother. To maintain fairness with the maximum parental leave pay entitlement for mothers, fathers and partners will have the same maximum 18-week entitlement under the extended Paid Parental Leave scheme.
Like parental leave pay, the new payment will be available during the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child.
Our Paid Parental Leave scheme – now with dad and partner pay – reduces the caring and work pressures on parents when their children are young.
Our scheme encourages the involvement of both parents in the early months of a child's life. Our scheme encourages bonding between fathers and their children, with lasting benefits for a child's development.
Our scheme meets the challenges of modern family life – letting families make their own choices about what works for them.
Our scheme sends a strong signal that taking time out of the paid workforce to care for a child is part of the usual course of life and work for both parents.
Our scheme for dad and partner pay is evidence-based.
It was recommended by the Productivity Commission, and the plan brought before the chamber today is informed by consultation with employer and employee groups, family and community groups and other interested individuals.
We commenced this consultation on Father's Day last year, and it has been a valuable tool in the development of dad and partner pay, as has the feedback provided by the Paid Parental Leave Implementation Group.
The Government's dad and partner pay– like Paid Parental Leave – is affordable, sustainable and secure.
It is fair for families, and fair for business.
Like Paid Parental Leave, dad and partner pay will be funded by the Government.
It does not require a new tax on business to pay for it.
Unlike the plan proposed by those opposite, it will not drive up grocery bills.
Dad and partner pay is good for new dads, it is good for new mums, and it gives Australian children the best start in life.
This bill also introduces amendments originally introduced on 3 November 2011 in the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Consolidation) Bill 2011. These amendments are being reintroduced as part of this bill to streamline the consideration of current amendments to the legislation underpinning the Paid Parental Leave scheme. These amendments improve clarity and consistency and make consequential amendments to the fair work legislation.
PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012
The Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 amends the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970, Acts Publication Act 1905 and the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 to enable the functions of the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing in the Attorney General's Department to be transferred to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
The Bill is part of a range of measures being conducted to facilitate the transfer of these functions.
As many would be aware, there are currently two Commonwealth offices responsible for drafting laws:
These two separate offices were originally established to deal with increasing demands on the Commonwealth for drafting resources, as the need for greater federal regulation grew, government responsibilities expanded, and government policies became increasingly complex.
Given the specialist and discrete nature of this work, it is important that the role of the Commonwealth drafter remain independent .
However it is common practice across other Australian jurisdictions, for the one office to draft both Bills and subordinate legislation.
These days, Regulations commonly contain major elements of substantive law, and are a vital part of the Commonwealth's statute book.
And with the volume of legislation rapidly increasing year by year, it is becoming imperative that Commonwealth legislation be drafted as consistently, clearly and effectively as possible.
The Commonwealth drafting offices were already working cooperatively to improve the consistency of Bills and subordinate legislation presented to Parliament. However, practical differences in their administrative systems and drafting standards have created a range of inconsistencies and difficulties.
It was for this reason that the Strategic Review of Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General's Portfolio, conducted by Mr Stephen Skehill, recommended to Government that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel take on the functions of the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing.
This change will significantly improve the efficient and effective management of the Commonwealth's legislative drafting resources.
The Bill will confer on the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the First Parliamentary Counsel, all the functions formerly undertaken by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing and the Secretary of my Department with regard to subordinate legislation, compilations and publishing.
This includes:
By conferring all of the functions on one Commonwealth drafting office, the Bill will facilitate the introduction of a consistent approach for drafting Bills and legislative instruments and, more broadly, maximise the use and flexibility of Commonwealth drafting resources.
It will also ensure the most efficient use of specialised information technology arrangements for the drafting of both Acts and subordinate legislation.
These additional responsibilities and functions accepted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, along with the movement of experienced and highly skilled staff from the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, will result in clearer and more consistent Commonwealth laws overall.
This, in turn, will make Commonwealth laws clearer and easier to understand.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2012 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2012
This Bill introduces several measures from the 2012 Budget and some other amendments to family assistance and child support provisions.
Income test exemptions for WA seniors
The first of the Budget measures will provide a permanent exemption from the social security and veterans' entitlements income tests for the Western Australian Government's Country Age Pension Fuel Card and the Cost of Living Rebate Scheme.
The Country Age Pension Fuel Card Scheme provides a card for eligible people living in country areas of Western Australia to purchase fuel and taxi fares – worth $500 a year for single people and for couples. The Cost of Living Rebate Scheme provides an annual payment to help with cost of living pressures for holders of a Western Australian seniors card – in 2012, the payment is $155.25 for single people and $232.90 for couples.
The Australian Government previously exempted the value of the WA Country Fuel Card and the Cost of Living Rebate Scheme from the social security and veterans' income tests up till 30 June 2012. This exemption has operated for the last three years, and ensured that people benefiting from the schemes did not have their income support payments reduced under the means tests.
The exemption is due to end on 30 June 2012.
This Bill now makes that exemption permanent, so eligible people can have confidence in the long-term that their income support payments will not be reduced because of benefits received through either Western Australian scheme.
This Australian Government exemption will benefit around 13,000 recipients of the WA Country Fuel Card and around 60,000 recipients of the Cost of Living Rebate Scheme who are in receipt of a social security or Veterans' Affairs income support payment.
Portability of income support and family payments
In a further Budget measure, the Bill tightens the rules for people who travel overseas while receiving income support payments and family payments.
From 1 January 2013, the length of time that people on most income support payments will be able to be overseas, and continue to receive payments, will be reduced from 13 to six weeks.
Many Australians have strong family and friendship connections overseas and it is appropriate to provide a limited portability period for Government welfare payments.
However, we believe that people of working age should be in Australia participating in the community and preparing to return to work if they can.
Six weeks is a reasonable period of time for an Australian resident to manage family or personal matters that may arise from time to time overseas, and have their overseas stay funded by the Australian taxpayer.
There is also discretion to extend portability periods in genuine exceptional circumstances, such when a person falls ill overseas and cannot return.
Family Tax Benefit Part A will continue to be paid for up to three years but will reduce to the base rate at six weeks, rather than at 13 weeks under current rules.
This change doesn't affect the Age Pension or Disability Support Pension recipients who have been assessed under new rules from 1 July 2012 as having a severe and permanent disability and no future work capacity.
Some payments such as Special Benefit and Newstart Allowance do not have general 13-week portability. They can currently only be paid outside Australia in limited and defined circumstances such as attending an acute family crisis or legal proceedings overseas. These payments will now only be payable for a maximum of six weeks.
The Bill also makes complementary amendments to the rules relating to waiting periods to receive some payments.
Family Tax Benefit Part A eligibility
As also announced in the Budget, the Bill limits Family Tax Benefit Part A to children aged under 18.
Families of children aged 18 and 19 who are studying full-time may continue to get the payment until the end of the calendar year in which they complete secondary education or equivalent vocational education.
This Government is ensuring that the family payment system helps low and middle-income families with the costs of raising children when they are young and while they are at school.
We believe that young people (over the age of 18) leaving high school should embrace the opportunities that come from further education or getting a job.
That is why we think it is reasonable that family assistance stops when a young adult turns 18 and leaves school.
Of course, Youth Allowance is available to young people if they need financial support while they are studying or looking for work.
This Government understands the costs of raising children. That is why we have already delivered up to $4,200 extra per year to FTB families with teenagers aged 16 to 19 who are in full-time secondary school or equivalent vocational education.
And our new Schoolkids Bonus – already passed by this Parliament despite attempts to block it by those opposite – and further Family Tax Benefit boosts that are part of this Budget, will continue to help families to make ends meet.
Non-Budget amendments
The Bill also makes some other minor non-budget amendments.
An amendment will clarify existing policy in relation the Low Income Supplement, part of the Government's clean energy future household assistance package.
This Bill will ensure that Family Tax Benefit households will qualify for a payment of Low Income Supplement where a person has an FTB child for 39 weeks or more during the year, where both partners have a notional tax liability of less than $300 a year, and where the person meets the other qualification conditions for the Low Income Supplement.
Another minor amendment in the Bill corrects an inequity in the Family Tax Benefit Part A rate provisions concerning whether reasonable maintenance action is considered to have been taken in certain cases in which child support is privately-collected.
A further amendment will allow a person's percentage of care for child support and Family Tax Benefit purposes to be based on the actual care of the child immediately, rather than following a 14-week delay that applies currently when there is a change in care that departs from a formal care arrangement. This amendment will apply only in special circumstances, such as where there is evidence of violence or other unusual behaviour.
The Bill will also clarify in the child support legislation the authority for the practice of automated decision-making using computer programs.
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TRUSTEE OBLIGATIONS AND PRUDENTIAL STANDARDS) BILL 2012
When most people go on an extended holiday they will find someone they trust to look after their home. A person they have confidence in to do all of things that might be necessary to protect their home while they are away.
For most Australians, superannuation will be their second greatest source of wealth after their home but usually we will not know the people we've entrusted to look after this important asset.
As participants in a compulsory superannuation system, Australians are entitled to be confident that governance across the superannuation industry is of a high standard and that their superannuation is being managed efficiently, prudently and in their best interests.
However, the Cooper Review, initiated by the Government, found that superannuation governance standards had not kept up with developments in the industry. It suggested there were difficulties for trustees and directors on trustee boards to understand what is expected of them. Further it found that, as the industry consolidated and became more integrated, conflicts of interest arose more regularly.
The Cooper Review also found that there was a need for "a more finely calibrated capacity for APRA to supervise and regulate the superannuation industry."
Consequently, a critically important part of the Government's Stronger Super package is reforming the governance and supervision of our superannuation system.
This is the objective of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012.
A key element of the Bill is to close a regulatory gap, by providing APRA with the ability to make prudential standards. APRA already has this ability in banking and insurance.
As Ross Jones of APRA put it recently:
"That is something we have been after for a long time -- 10 years -- to try to ensure that the quality of supervision in superannuation is what you get in other industries."
Prudential standards will allow APRA to develop, in consultation with the industry, targeted rules that improve the management of these institutions.
Prudential standards will provide APRA with greater flexibility to effectively adapt to industry developments in superannuation and the ability to provide regulated entities with clearer and more tailored legal requirements.
Prudential standards will be able to be made on any prudential matter that includes:
Prudential standards can apply to APRA-regulated superannuation funds, connected entities of those funds, a specified class of fund or connected entity or any individual fund or connected entity.
Prudential standards are disallowable legislative instruments. Therefore, APRA must comply with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 in making any prudential standard, including conducting appropriate consultation with the industry.
There will also be new duties applying to trustees and individual directors.
New duties for trustees include:
Trustees will have expanded requirements in relation to their investment strategies. In developing an investment strategy the trustee must have regard to valuation information, expected tax consequences and expected costs in their investment strategies, and offer a range of options sufficient to allow members to choose a diversified asset mix.
Trustees will have a new requirement to develop an insurance strategy for members of their fund. This reflects that insurance provided by a trustee has a direct impact on the retirement benefits of members. Trustees will have to consider the kinds and level of insurance that is appropriate for their members having regard to the cost of that insurance and whether that cost may inappropriately erode retirement incomes of members.
Trustees will also have to develop a risk management strategy and meet a requirement to maintain financial resources, either as trustee capital or as fund reserves, to cover the operational risks of the funds they manage.
Duties applying to individual directors of corporate trustees of superannuation funds will be separately identified. These duties include:
These new requirements for trustees and directors will improve trustee decisions, fund efficiency and effectiveness, and thereby help grow member superannuation entitlements.
However, a trustee's responsibility will be no greater than the responsibility they owe to those members who accept the default MySuper product.
Therefore, trustees that are authorised by APRA to offer a MySuper product will also have additional obligations. This reflects that these members have effectively delegated all decisions for their superannuation to the trustee.
There will be a primary obligation to promote the financial interests of members of the MySuper product, in particular returns after the deduction of fees, costs and taxes.
A primary focus on the returns put into the pockets of members will ensure that members of a MySuper product can have the confidence that they will receive the maximum possible superannuation at retirement.
Supporting this obligation, a determination will have to be made on an annual basis whether a fund has sufficient assets and members for both the MySuper product and superannuation fund as a whole to continue to meet the obligation to promote the financial interests of members of the MySuper product.
Trustees will also have to clearly articulate a target investment return and level of risk appropriate for the MySuper product. This highlights a trustee's obligation to focus on the returns to members after the deduction of fees, costs and taxes.
I am proud to introduce this Bill today as it marks this Government's ongoing commitment to improve the superannuation system for all Australians.
This is especially so given the Government's historic commitment to increase superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, which combined with existing growth is expected to see superannuation assets reach $6.2 trillion by 2036.
Subsequent tranches of legislation will introduce further Stronger Super reforms that will improve system transparency.
Full details of the amendments are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY AND MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE) BILL 2012
This Bill increases the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge low income thresholds for individuals and families in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index. These changes will ensure that low income individuals and families that are currently exempt from the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge will continue to be exempt when their incomes have risen in line with the Consumer Price Index.
The Bill also increases the Medicare levy low income threshold for pensioners below Age Pension age. This will ensure that individuals in this cohort do not pay the Medicare levy when they do not have an income tax liability.
These increases will apply to the 2011 12 year.
Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AMENDMENT (INDEPENDENT EXPERT SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON COAL SEAM GAS AND LARGE COAL MINING DEVELOPMENT) BILL 2012
I rise in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012.
On 21 November 2011, the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to establish an Independent Expert Scientific Committee to provide scientific advice to federal, state and territory governments on coal seam gas and large coal mining developments where they have significant impacts on water.
The Committee is part of a new science-based framework introduced by the Government to provide more certainty for regional communities around coal seam gas and large coal mining developments, jobs and investment and the protection of water resources.
The Committee will provide independent scientific advice to governments on coal seam gas and large coal mining projects when they consider applications for these types of development.
The establishment of this committee will also provide local communities and other stakeholders with accessible and reliable scientific information that will build confidence in government assessment processes.
In support of this, the Government is negotiating a National Partnership Agreement with relevant state and territory governments.
Under the agreement, signatory governments are required to seek the Independent Expert Scientific Committee’s advice when considering applications for coal seam gas and large coal mining developments that have a significant impact on water resources.
Queensland was the first signatory to the National Partnership Agreement on 14 February 2012 and New South Wales followed on 6 March 2012. Negotiations with the other states and territories are continuing.
The Bill being introduced into Parliament today formally establishes the Committee and makes it a requirement that the Environment Minister must seek and take account of the Committee’s advice in certain specific circumstances.
The Bill also establishes a number of functions for the Committee:
• At the request of governments that are signatories to the National Partnership Agreement, the Committee will provide scientific advice on proposed coal seam gas or large coal mining developments that are likely to have a significant impact on water resources.
This scientific advice will be provided within two months of the date of the request.
• As part of its functions, the Committee will also scope and advise on bioregional assessments in areas where coal seam gas and/or large coal mining developments are underway or planned, including priority areas for these assessments.
• It will advise on research priorities that tackle critical gaps in scientific understanding including in circumstances where further information is required to assist in regulatory decisions.
• It will provide advice on ways to improve the consistency and comparability of research on coal seam gas and/or large coal mining developments, including possible standards for protecting water resources from these impacts.
The Independent Expert Scientific Committee will be an open committee, providing regular public updates of its work on a dedicated website, publishing its advice and the outcomes of bioregional assessments and commissioned research.
The Government considers the establishment of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee as important given the potential impacts associated with the large number of applications for coal seam gas and large coal mining exploration and development currently in the pipeline.
Independent expert scientific advice to provide quality recommendations for the protection of water resources has formed part of consideration of applications where they have been under national environmental law.
To date, this quality independent advice has been limited to the extent of environmental powers in relation to matters of national environmental significance set out under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The work of the Committee will provide industry with greater guidance on sustainable management of water resources in areas where coal seam gas and coal mining exploration and developments are proposed.
An independent assessment process will help build community confidence in coal seam gas and coal mining developments in sensitive areas.
These arrangements will provide Australians with greater confidence that projects will be subject to the most rigorous and objective scientific assessment.
I recommend the Amendment Bill to the Senate.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
CLEAN ENERGY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012
This Bill makes amendments to the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related Acts.
These amendments support the establishment of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They also address commitments made by the Government during the passage of the original legislation, or are minor and technical amendments designed to improve the operation of the carbon pricing mechanism.
Gaseous fuels
During passage of the Clean Energy Act in 2011, the Government committed to consider the coverage of gaseous fuels – which include liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas and compressed natural gas - in a similar way to how large liquid fuel users may opt into the carbon price.
This commitment responded to representations by the gaseous fuels sector, and a recommendation made by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation.
Today the Government honours that commitment, which provides the gaseous fuels sector with the flexibility it sought to meet its carbon price liabilities. The gaseous fuels sector has expressed a strong preference to be able to access the carbon market and be part of the emissions trading scheme we have legislated. This is a similar preference that companies like Qantas and Virgin expressed to us last year about their ability to be covered by the Clean Energy Act 2011.
The Government has consulted extensively with participants in the gaseous fuels sector to develop the approach to coverage proposed in this Bill.
From 1 July 2012, CNG will be covered by the carbon pricing mechanism, rather than the fuel tax system. This bill, together with the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 and the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012 - which I will shortly introduce – give effect to that change.
From 1 July 2013, LPG and LNG will be covered by the mechanism. A transitional period will allow the required administrative changes to be made by the industry, as well as within the Australian Taxation Office and the Clean Energy Regulator.
The Government has been working with industry on arrangements to streamline and reduce costs during this transitional period.
CNG is covered from 2012, as it may be treated as natural gas for the purposes of the mechanism.
These measures were notified to stakeholders and then announced in the 2012-13 Budget.
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007
The bill amends the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to enhance its operation for reporting entities.
A person with 'operational control' of a facility is generally responsible for carbon price liability and associated reporting obligations. Where operational control is not clear, a nomination may be made. The bill streamlines the requirements for nomination. Annual nominations will no longer be required, and nominations may last for as long as required.
The bill provides that the Regulator only needs to publish a 'net energy consumption'. An additional requirement to publish 'total energy consumption' is removed. The 'net energy consumption' requirement is more appropriate because it does not include the transformation of one energy commodity into another.
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011
The bill makes technical amendments to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 to ensure the robustness of the processes supporting the Carbon Farming Initiative.
The bill maintains the integrity of the CFI by requiring that projects have secured all required regulatory approvals before they receive any credits. It simplifies the process of finalising methodology determinations, by clarifying the material to be used by the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee in making determinations.
The bill provides more time to approve methodologies for existing projects, to facilitate the transition of these projects into the CFI. Methodologies submitted for assessment by the middle of 2012, and approved by the middle of 2013, can be backdated to the middle of 2010.
Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011
The bill amends the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011 to enhance the security of the Registry.
The bill increases the amount of time during which the Clean Energy Regulator may defer giving effect to a transfer instruction from 48 hours to five business days, giving the Regulator time to make decisions about deferral and deal with suspicious transactions.
The bill also provides for conditions restricting or limiting the operation of certain accounts to apply in prescribed circumstances.
Clean Energy Finance Corporation
The bill amends legislation establishing the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Regulator to provide for the appropriate sharing of information between those agencies and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
These amendments will enhance the operation of the carbon pricing mechanism and support the establishment of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
CLEAN ENERGY (CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT) BILL 2012
This bill is part of a package of bills amending certain aspects of the Clean Energy Future plan. As announced in the 2012-13 Budget, compressed natural gas (CNG) used for non-transport purposes will be now included in the carbon pricing mechanism from 1 July 2012.
This changes the originally proposed treatment of compressed natural gas which was to be subject to the effective carbon price using the fuel tax system. This bill will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to achieve the same outcome as amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 made by the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 but for imported compressed natural gas. This will ensure non transport use of compressed natural gas is exempt from customs duty.
Full details of the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012 are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
CLEAN ENERGY (CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT) BILL 2012
This bill is part of a package of bills amending certain aspects of the Clean Energy Future plan. As announced in the 2012-13 Budget, compressed natural gas (CNG) used for non-transport purposes will be now included in the carbon pricing mechanism from 1 July 2012.
This changes the originally proposed treatment of compressed natural gas which was to be subject to the effective carbon price using the fuel tax system. This bill will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to achieve the same outcome as amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 made by the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 but for imported compressed natural gas. This will ensure non transport use of compressed natural gas is exempt from customs duty.
Full details of the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012 are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Procee dings suspended from 18:32 to 19 :30
On behalf of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senator Sterle, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present the following reports on time critical legislation from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the Economics Committee and the Community Affairs Legislation Committees:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee – Report – Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children's Commissioner) Bill 2012 [Provisions]
Economics Legislation Committee – Report – Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 [Provisions]; the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012 [Provisions] and the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 [Provisions]
Community Affairs Legislation Committee – Report – Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012 [Provisions]
Economics Legislation Committee – Report – Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 3) Bill 2012 [Provisions], the Income Tax (Seasonal Labour Mobility Program Withholding Tax) Bill 2012 [Provisions] and the Tax Laws Amendment (Income Tax Rates) Bill 2012 [Provisions]
Ordered that the reports be printed.
In many ways this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012, is technical legislation. The coalition will not be opposing it and indeed has agreed to expedite the passage of this legislation. It is similar to a bill that was introduced into the last parliament.
This bill addresses a number of issues, including a number of court decisions, one of which was Daniel v the Health Insurance Commission and Others, a decision of the Federal Court of Australia, of 28 July 2003. That case looked at the conduct of the Director of the PSR and at various legislation involving the definition of 'inappropriate practice' and various other matters.
The legislation before us also seeks to implement certain recommendations of the review of the PSR Scheme, which are in the report of the steering committee of 2007. It also makes minor administrative changes to the scheme and, further to the bill that was presented in the last parliament, it introduces amendments in response to the decision of the full Federal Court in the case of Kutlu v Director of Professional Services Review, a decision of the full Federal Court of 28 July 2011. It looks at some technical matters there.
Senator Back is here and he will no doubt be speaking on this legislation as well. I commend the work of senators in the recent inquiry of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee. I am sure Senator Back will be speaking to the additional comments made by coalition senators in relation to that inquiry. I will pick up on some of those comments. The coalition senators did want to acknowledge those of the medical profession who were sufficiently courageous to expose some of the limitations of the PSR process. It was certainly clear from the work done by coalition senators that the processes were deficient and led to unjust outcomes. In turn, one of the obvious consequences of that will be to discourage people from joining or remaining in a medical profession at a time when there are real shortages.
As coalition senators stated, in relation to the genuine deep concerns of many in the medical profession, whether some of those concerns were exaggerated or were adequately expressed is a matter of judgment. The PSR is a peer review process and, as we know, it was established in the early 1990s. Importantly, it is charged with protecting the integrity of the Medicare system and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The scheme currently covers medical practitioners, dentists, optometrists, midwives, nurse practitioners, chiropractors, physiotherapists, podiatrists and osteopaths who use both the Medicare system and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is an important process, the intention of which is to protect the public from inappropriate practice by ensuring that Commonwealth funded services, which are delivered by practitioners, are medically necessary and clinically relevant. The intention is also to ensure that the public are protected from the consequences of inappropriate practice by ensuring that payments to claimants are made in accordance with the relevant Medicare regulations and the relevant regulations under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule, and most especially that the service that has been provided is adequate in the light of the associated requirements for which that payment may be claimed. The Medicare Participation Review Committee, or the MPRC, is the independent statutory body that decides whether or not practitioners who have engaged in the conduct retain the right to practise under Medicare as a consequence of that conduct. The Commonwealth currently spends nearly $18 billion on Medicare services and $10 billion on pharmaceutical benefits per annum. I place on record that the coalition does support processes which ensure the integrity of the expenditure and the appropriateness of the clinical services and does support having a process which ensures that integrity is maintained.
The explanatory memorandum states that the amendments proposed by this bill will not alter the PSR or the Medicare Participation Review Committee processes. Those amendments are intended to improve administration, to clarify issues that have been raised in recent court decisions that I made reference to and to address certain evidentiary matters. This was a point that was reiterated by the minister in her second reading speech. As I indicated earlier, the bill addresses the issues that were particularly raised by the full Federal Court in the decision in Kutlu v Director of Professional Services Review, where the court held that there was a technical problem with the appointment of PSR panel members. This bill will ensure that those appointments are treated as valid and effective and, accordingly, the coalition will not be opposing this bill.
As my colleague Senator Fierravanti-Wells quite correctly noted in her speech on this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012, professional services review was the subject of a Senate inquiry and I thank my colleagues, led by Senator Rachel Siewert, for the Senate allowing us to undertake an investigation. I am pleased to record that the legislation we are considering this evening picks up on many of the issues which were the subject of concern to the committee and which appear in the report and, to some extent, in the coalition senators' report.
It is an absolute undertaking that the expenditure of public moneys, on this occasion through the Medicare system and through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, should be the subject of the highest level of audit and probity and that, if there is an occasion when a member of the medical profession or kindred professions is in default under this scheme and has been in some way defrauding the taxpayers of Australia, they should be dealt with in the harshest possible way. However, the representations made to me and other Senate colleagues which led to the PSR review and inquiry being undertaken illustrated that there were deficiencies and that there clearly was unfairness occurring. I will reflect on those issues for a couple of moments.
The first point I would make relates particularly to doctors in rural and regional areas of Australia, where their workloads are often very high, where they often do not have the support of colleagues and where they are therefore placed in a position of having no option but to have high caseloads. It was of concern that too many instances were occurring in which doctors who appeared out on the right-hand end of the normal or bell curve—in other words, that end of the curve where there would appear to have been a high degree of client consultation and therefore overcharging—were being unfairly discriminated against or were being unfairly targeted. I have been assured, as a result of the inquiry we held and as a result of questions asked in Senate estimates only in the last month, that if that practice occurred in the past then it has certainly ceased. In fairness to the then director, he would argue that that had not been the case. But the evidence before the committee was that those who were very high in their caseloads, those who were perhaps in positions where they had no option but to see large numbers of patients, did appear to actually attract the attention of, firstly, the Medicare officers responsible in this area and, subsequently, the Director of Professional Services Review. That is an area that I believe this place needs to continue to examine to ensure that doctors who are legitimate as to the workloads they undertake—and therefore as to the incomes they generate under the Medicare system and subsequently under the PBS—have adequate opportunity to explain that situation before they find themselves either the subjects of allegation or indeed in default.
The second area I want to alert the Senate to is the process of panel membership—those who will judge doctors or allied health professionals in this area. It is absolutely essential that, firstly, they are competent to assess their peers on whom they are sitting in judgment. They would argue perhaps that they are not sitting in judgment and that they are only putting advice to the director, but it is one and the same to somebody who is the subject of such investigation. The panel members must be drawn from a wide group of professionals who, first of all, are actively practising—I would suggest actively practising full-time—and who can assess the doctors on the capacities for which they are before the panel.
I can recall an instance in which a doctor who was not a cardiac specialist and who had a very prolonged series of interviews with a patient in consideration of some psychological affairs became cognisant of the fact that this person appeared to have a cardiac condition. They immediately referred that person to a cardiologist, who in fact undertook treatment and was able to save the life of that person. The psychologist was then the subject of an adverse inquiry by the PSR because they had not undertaken an electrocardiogram of that patient. That is unconscionable and should never, ever have gone to a full assessment by a panel. In fact, in his evidence, that doctor produced documentation from the cardiologist supporting the argument that his excellence as a clinician probably saved the life of the patient. I know that is only one isolated case, but it did seem to keep coming up in our inquiry.
The points I would make are these. Panel members (a) have to be drawn from a wide background and (b) have to be themselves engaged in the profession actively—and, I would say, professionally—full time. If I could just advert back for one moment to those from rural and regional areas, I would plead that those panel members should at least, if not currently in rural and regional practice, have had experience themselves in rural and regional practice so that they understand the constraints and the pressures on their peers whom they might be judging.
Coming back to my support of Senator Fierravanti-Wells and the legislation: where there is corruption or fraud, it must obviously be rooted out. The other point I would make relates to specialties—an area that we identified in the inquiry. With the evolution of medicine, there are new specialties emerging. Once again, it comes back to panel membership.
I make this point in conclusion about the whole question of the past—and I believe it is picked up in the legislation—in which somebody who had been the subject of an adverse report could only appeal on the legalities of the mechanism of which they were the subject but they could not appeal based on the medical facts. As a person who has been a member of a somewhat kindred profession, I believe that is medically nonsense. It is incompetence. In fact, should there be a challenge, it should be possible for the person who has been the subject of an adverse report, with their solicitor and through their solicitor, to challenge not only the legality of the process which has led them to where they are but also the medical facts upon which decisions have been made.
In conclusion, I have to say to you that the current and newly appointed Director of the Professional Services Review is, I believe, a person of enormous integrity—not that I reflect on those of the past, but I do understand and know this person. I for one believe that we will see in his stewardship of this new legislation a complete change—hopefully very, very harsh on those who genuinely are in default but at the same time understanding of those whose case should be the subject of meritorious study before it goes on to the more harsh legal constraints.
I thank the members of the Senate for their contributions to the debate on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012. The Professional Services Review Scheme and the Medicare Participation Review Committee process are important parts of the government's efforts to protect the integrity of the Medicare Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The bill will ensure that the Professional Services Review Scheme continues to operate effectively so that Medicare can provide high-quality, appropriate and safe health services for all Australians. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole. I call the minister.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
This evening we are debating another of the bureaucracies in the government's so-called health reform. The purpose of this legislation is to enact a funding body, the proposal for which has an interesting history. It was the funding body we were going to have under whatever the previous iteration, or one of the previous iterations, of so-called health reform was going to be. And then, as senators may remember, on the eve of the midwinter ball, in answer to a question on notice from me at the time of the inquiry into the reforms through the Senate Standing Committees on Finance and Public Administration, suddenly we had the answer delivered to us that the funding authority was no longer necessary. Indeed, Minister Roxon then, when asked a question in relation to it, told us:
It's not appropriate for us to - and we've made it very clear we don't want to increase the size of the bureaucracy - it's not appropriate for us to establish an authority where there is not a need to do so.
She went on to say:
There will need to be people who can process essentially the cheques that need to be paid through to … hospital networks, but it doesn't require an authority.
Funny about that! And yet here we are today considering this bill, the National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012, for a new bureaucracy that the government considered was necessary, then considered was not necessary, and now considers is necessary again. It speaks volumes for what has now become the soap opera of so-called health reform in this country. The unnecessary, until recently, funding body is just another one in the long line of bureaucracies. I will come to that in a moment. All of this, let us not forget, started when the member for Griffith as the then Leader of the Opposition in 2007 promised that he had a plan to fix the hospitals. Yes, the buck would stop with him, Senator Cormann. If his plan was not being achieved by mid-2009 Labor would hold a referendum to 'seek to take financial control of Australia's 750 public hospitals'. We know through our questioning at estimates that there was not a plan. There was not even a plan on the back of an envelope. I will come to then health minister Roxon's comments, which we saw in the leadership turmoil earlier this year and which provided a fascinating insight into the relationship between Minister Roxon and then Prime Minister Rudd.
I dusted off my shelf and for reasons of sentimentality decided that it was probably appropriate this evening for me to look at these various iterations once again. We had the blue book released in March 2010, A national health and hospitals network for Australia's future. That was the first blueprint. Then, before COAG, the sales pitch was the green book, A national health and hospitals network: further investments in Australia's health. That was the sales pitch before COAG. Then, of course, we had the red book from COAG, 19 and 20 April 2010, A national health and hospitals network for Australia's future: delivering better health and better hospitals. How many millions of dollars were wasted in producing all these books? Then we had the rather dubious yellow-coloured book, as we refer to it at estimates, Delivering the reforms. It sets out timelines, most of which have not been met. Look, I found a photo. Isn't that lovely? There is then Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Roxon happily posing for photographs. They might have been happily posing, but that is not how Minister Roxon was thinking. During the leadership turmoil she told us precisely what she was thinking about then Prime Minister Rudd.
Then we have in July 2011 the National Health Reform Agreement. Sorry, I missed 13 February 2011 and another iteration of it. Then we have the July 2011 National Health Reform Agreement. Then we have another iteration on 2 August 2011 and then in September 2011 yet another iteration of this debacle, this soap opera, that is so-called health reform in this country.
The leadership turmoil earlier this year provided, as I said, valuable insight into the government's chaotic decision making process on this major policy reform. We have Minister Roxon claiming that the process for considering health reform policy was often done without proper advice and it was, according to her, 'a ludicrous way to run government'. For example, the proposal for a referendum to take over the hospital system was in her words 'a cynical approach' and would have been 'a disaster'. Minister Roxon issued joint press releases with the member for Griffith, promoting a possible referendum as part of the government's policy. So, she is now telling us that the whole thing would have been a disaster, yet she was very happily posing for photographs with Mr Rudd, going from hospital to hospital. All it was was a photo opportunity. For all of this she has been promoted to be our Attorney-General. Incredible! Instead of being admonished, she has been promoted. That is why this area of policy needs very careful scrutiny.
I mentioned bureaucracies earlier, and the unnecessary—as I said, until recently—funding body is yet another in a long line of bureaucracies. I just want to list them for the record. It has only been 1½ terms and we have seen so far the establishment of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, separate from the department and with a budgeted cost of over $35 million; then we have the National Health Performance Authority at a cost of over $118 million; we have the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority with a price tag of over $91 million; and we have Medicare Locals with funding of over $416 million. We still do not know what these Medicare Locals are going to do, because nobody can tell us what a Medicare Local is going to do. I had thought it was a place where you get a refund and a drink. That obviously is not what a Medicare Local is, but it has a price tag of $416 million. Then we have the Australian Medicare Locals Network. If we do not know what the Medicare Locals are going to do, we sure do not know what the Australian Medicare Locals Network is going to do—but it has a price tag of over $12.5 million. Then we have the Local Hospital Networks. In addition, we have got the Australian Preventive Health Agency and Health Workforce Australia. The government has proposed in this budget that the Aged Care Financing Authority and the Aged Care Reform Implementation Council be established. As far as my own portfolio area of ageing is concerned, this funding and this proposal for a funding authority have absolutely sent the industry into meltdown. About $3½ billion dollars of potential capital investment is on hold because of the uncertainty surrounding this government's action.
All that this gives us is enormous potential not only for duplication but for waste and overregulation. That will be the legacy of this government. This is the hallmark of their operation. Another $38 million has been allocated in the budget for the administrator and funding body. That is a pretty hefty price tag for somebody who is going to sit there and process cheques. When this was originally set up the then health minister, Ms Roxon, effectively told us that this bureaucracy was not necessary. She said that they did not want to increase the size of the bureaucracy. Remember Kevin Rudd's promise that there would be no net increase in the bureaucracy? I do not know how all these bureaucracies that are being created with price tags of millions and millions of dollars are not going to result in a greater level of bureaucracy in this country. Former health minister Roxon told us: 'No, no, we don't need another person; we don't need another bureaucracy that is essentially going to process cheques that are going to paid through the local hospital networks. No, we don't need another funding authority.' But we have it.
What is this body going to do? What is this funding pool which, according to the National Health Reform Agreement, comprises state pool accounts for each state and territory? The administrator is going to operate the pool. Apparently he is going to make payments to the states for public hospital services. The administrator is going to calculate and advise the Commonwealth Treasurer of the payments to the pool. Of course, the states will also pay their contribution into the pool for activity funded services. One can only imagine what the spaghetti map showing how all this money is going to go in and out will look like. It can only be described as a giant money-laundering exercise that will operate at huge expense to the Commonwealth and to the taxpayers of Australia.
The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority is meant to set the so-called national efficient price for hospital services and to determine which services are to be block funded as opposed to activity funded. The department, in its evidence to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, advised that the administrator in making the payments will need to know the number of services provided by each local hospital network and the efficient price of those services—but a national efficient price has not yet been established. On available evidence from the authority, activity based funding will initially be based on mean or median cost of a service rather than any notion of an actual 'efficient price'. This may have consequences for hospitals in terms of driving real efficiency and in ensuring the viability of best practice where providing quality service with good outcomes is above the median cost. There has also been little explanation of if, when, or how the system is to transition to a normative pricing model where 'efficient price' is properly defined. It has not been properly explained why another $40 million bureaucracy is required to process the payments when we already have an independent authority pricing the services.
We also do not know how this authority is going to interact and coordinate its responsibilities with other entities that have been prepared as part of this so-called health reform. It is interesting to see that this funding authority first of all was not necessary but now is. It is very clear from statements made at the time that the states ended up getting their way—they did not want this authority. Now that we are getting this funding authority it is very clear that the state health ministers have the upper hand, because they have a discretion over Commonwealth funds. Why have we gone through this tortuous process? Because Prime Minister Gillard wanted desperately to be seen to have actually brokered a deal. We now know a lot more about what was happening behind the scenes in relation to the process of so-called health reform when Prime Minister Rudd was at the helm. But as Ms Gillard said proudly in her doorstop on 24 February 2012:
... I have got big reforms done that languished under my predecessor.
Of course, she was talking about health reform. But when one looks at the various iterations of these agreements one sees that what started out as Kevin Rudd's grand plan to fix the hospitals has been watered down so that the states are still in control. It is business as usual. We have seen in the last few days reports that Tasmania is going to be bailed out. The Commonwealth government is now going to bail out the absolutely and utterly incompetent Tasmanian Labor government. There was the Premier offering to hand over control of the Tasmanian health system to the Commonwealth because it is such a shambolic system. Having spent some time down in Tasmania and having spoken to not only aged-care providers but also providers in other related areas, it is very clear that the Tasmanian government know absolutely nothing about running hospitals or their health system.
Here we have the states still in control. Have the emergency targets been met? No, they have not been met. They were never going to be met. Kevin Rudd and Nicola Roxon wanted the headline 'Four-hour emergency targets', but they are not going to be met. It will be very interesting to see whether payments will be made to the states for meeting those targets. I think that they will not be met because the states never had the intention of meeting any obligations. Ultimately, as the Victorian Premier said right up front back when we had the first iteration of the so-called health reform—he was quoted as saying this in the Australianthe states are still in charge. The states have always been in charge. They have always directed operations as far as this was concerned. All that the Prime Minister did was sign off on the latest iteration of a so-called health agreement where really the states are still in control because she wanted the Australian public to believe that her government was doing something on health reform.
At the last three or four estimates I have asked, 'What is the definition of a bed?' I still cannot get the definition of a bed or a bed-equivalent. This is the point we are at. Where is health reform in this country when this government cannot even work out with the states the definition of a bed? Quite frankly, it is little wonder that we are here this evening talking about another new bureaucracy. There are all these bureaucracies and no improvement whatsoever to the health system. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
No amendments to the bills have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bills to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
The coalition support the Corporations Amendment (Proxy Voting) Bill 2012. In fact, we have been calling on the government for some time to finally introduce this standalone piece of legislation that will ensure that the chair at an annual general meeting can vote undirected proxies in a non-binding shareholder vote on remuneration matters where the shareholder granting the proxy has provided express authorisation. This bill fixes a problem that this incompetent and dysfunctional Labor government created with the changes it made in the Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Bill 2011, which eliminated the ability of the chair at an AGM to vote undirected proxies, as we were later told, unintentionally.
The measure to fix this problem was originally included in the Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011, which was delayed due to the unanimous findings of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry that unrelated sections of that bill were flawed. The government refused to act on these findings for months and refused to split these proxy voting provisions from that bill, which has been stalled for months. We have, as I said, been calling on the government for some time to fix this and to introduce a separate bill to address this issue which the government has created. This government has been responsible for the delay of this important rectification on proxy voting. No-one other than this incompetent and dysfunctional Labor government can take the blame for this. We have offered for some time to pass this measure in an expedited fashion if it is split from the consumer credit bill. On that basis, we support this legislation today.
I would like to thank those senators who have taken part in the debate on the bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The coalition supports the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Audit Enhancement) Bill 2012, following the Treasury review of the quality of audits in Australia. Following the global financial downturn of 2008-09, a review of audit quality in Australia was conducted over two months from 10 March 2010 by Treasury. A consultation paper was released by the Financial Reporting Council to guide the review. Whilst the review found that the legal framework was robust and stable, it did identify some areas for improvement. The consultation process continued through a series of roundtable discussions between Treasury and the audit industry. The bill proposes changes to the law relating to audit rotation. It introduces transparency reports for large auditors, changes the responsibilities of the Financial Reporting Council and gives ASIC the power to issue audit deficiency reports. The changes in this bill have been widely supported across the industry and the coalition equally supports this bill.
I thank Senator Cormann for his contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole. I call the minister.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The coalition does not oppose the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012. The bill makes the following changes to existing taxation and superannuation laws. It disallows deductions against rebateable benefits from 1 July 2012, removes access to the trading stock exemption for superannuation funds, makes ex gratia payments to New Zealand special category visa holders impacted by the 2012 floods tax exempt, phases out the dependent spouse tax offset to implement a budget measure and makes some other minor changes to the tax laws. As I have mentioned, the coalition does not oppose this bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments to the bills have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bills to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The opposition does not oppose this bill. The bill makes a series of changes to existing taxation and superannuation laws as follows. It amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to ensure that a supply made by a healthcare provider to an insurer, a statutory compensation scheme operator, a compulsory third-party scheme operator or a government entity is treated as a GST-free supply to the extent that the underlying supply from the healthcare provider to an individual is a GST-free health supply. This amendment corrects an anomaly arising from a recent full Federal Court decision and preserves the original policy intention of the GST act that certain supplies of health related goods and services are to be GST-free when they involve multiparty payment arrangements through an insurer or a government entity.
The bill also amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to restore the policy intent that the non-commercial activities of government related entities are not subject to the goods and services tax. This amendment corrects an anomaly arising from a recent full Federal Court decision and preserves the original intention of the GST act that non-commercial activities of government related entities are not subject to GST. This is achieved by treating a payment which meets certain conditions as not being the provision of consideration and therefore not subject to the basic GST rules.
It also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to temporarily pause the indexation of the superannuation concessional contribution cap so that it will remain fixed at $25,000 up to and including the 2013-14 financial year. This is a continuation of the bad, high-spending, high-taxing Labor government, forcing Australians saving to achieve self-funded retirement to pay the price for their reckless and wasteful spending over the last 4½ years. It is just another example of this government making Australians saving for their retirement pay the price for their fiscal mismanagement.
This bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the Superannuation (Government Co-Contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and various other acts to allow eligible individuals the option to effectively have excess concessional contributions of $10,000 or less refunded to them. If the refund is accepted, the excess concessional contributions will be assessed as income for the year of the excess contributions rather than the individual paying excess contributions tax. The relief provided is a one-off only and would not apply where a taxpayer had made excess contributions on any previous occasion on or after 1 July 2011.
We do not think this measure goes far enough, but at least it is a start. We think anybody who has clearly made inadvertent mistakes in their excess contributions should have the capacity to rectify that without the absolutely disproportionate and excessive penalties that are being imposed by the ATO right now. The ATO should have proper discretion to allow Australians who are saving to achieve self-funded retirement to correct these sorts of errors in circumstances where clearly these mistakes have been made either inadvertently or even, on some occasions, outside people's own control.
Schedule 5 to this bill permits the Australian Taxation Office to disclose details of an individual's superannuation interests and superannuation benefits to a regulated superannuation fund or public sector superannuation scheme, an approved deposit fund, retirement savings account provider or their administrators. This will enable the ATO to provide information to the bodies, particularly through enhanced services that will allow those bodies to access information about a member's superannuation interests, including amounts held by the ATO. This information will enable funds to assist their members to find and consolidate their superannuation interests.
As I mentioned at the outset, the coalition will not oppose this bill, although we would revisit some of these issues in government if successful at the next election.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Telecommunications Interception and Other Legislation Amendment (State Bodies) Bill 2012 proposes to amend the principal act—the Telecommunications (Interception) Act—to provide for the removal of the Victorian Office of Police Integrity, which is being abolished, and the substitution of the Victorian Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission as an authority eligible to intercept communications. In order for it to be a declared agency, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that the law of the requesting state makes provision for the agency to comply with the Telecommunications (Interception) Act's record-keeping, reporting and inspection obligations. The state must also enter into an agreement to pay all expenses associated with the issue of warrants to the agency. This bill provides for Victoria to legislate for a public interest monitor, which will be given specific oversight functions. These include a power to question officers of agencies and to make submissions on any application for a warrant by a declared agency. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953, the Privacy Act 1998 and the Crimes Act 1914 to substitute the Victorian Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission for the Office of Police Integrity in those statutes. The Victorian government supports these measures. As the opposition has been advised, the government is introducing amendments to make similar changes in respect of its new independent commission against corruption.
The opposition will support this bill and the government amendments. The interception of telecommunications is an important weapon in the fight against serious and organised crime. This bill enables Victorian agencies to use that weapon and harmonises their regime with the oversight arrangements in use in other states, avoiding constitutional complications.
I thank senators for their contribution, and I now commend the Telecommunications Interception and Other Legislation Amendment (State Bodies) Bill 2012 to the Senate.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The idea behind the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012 is to bring the classification categories for computer games into line with existing categories used to classify films and other media. Under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 the different types of classification for computer games are G for general, PG for parental guidance, M for mature, MA15+ for mature accompanied and RC for refused classification. Within the current system, the highest legally available classification category for a computer game is MA15+. Games which are not suitable for a minor to play are currently refused classification. Unlike film, video games do not have an R18+ classification. Games would be in this classification for violence, language, nudity, drug use or adult themes. Although the act has been reviewed several times since 1995, an R18+ classification for computer games has not been added. In order for this classification to be added to the act, all state and territory attorneys-general, together with the Commonwealth Attorney-General, must unanimously agree to its introduction. This has only recently been agreed upon.
With no R18+, there is evidence that games meant for adults were rated MA15+, making them available to minors and confusing parents who try to do the right thing. The opposition understands that shoehorning has occurred of videogames which might usually be classified R18+ into the MA15+ category. Clearly adult games, we believe, should be restricted to adults. It is more appropriate that they are classified in this new category rather than being shoehorned into the lesser MA15+ category. With this proposed change, parents would have a better idea of what a game is like. Adults would be allowed freedom of choice and children would be prevented from purchasing adult games. Some games which would ordinarily be classified R18+ are being modified and classified within the MA15+ category. With an R18+ classification, these games could be placed in the most appropriate category for them.
The current classification system not only fails to allow adults the right to choose; it also falls short in protecting minors from potentially harmful or disturbing content. A huge number of games rated MA18+ in Australia have been rated for 17- or 18-year-olds in similar and like-minded countries, such as the United States and many of the European nations. On top of that, a handful of games have been edited to earn their local rating.
Contrary to some claims, the lack of an R rating for games makes it easy for children to access adult content. Legislating to allow an R18+ category will give consumers clear information, a clearer choice and more confidence in the games they buy for themselves and for their children. On most gaming consoles it is possible to activate parental controls. These controls allow you to set limits on the amount of time and the classifications of games that can be played. Using these controls can assist in enforcing family guidelines on gaming and protect younger gamers from inappropriate material. Some gamers illegally access games that would be classified R18+. It would be better if they were legally available in Australia with the appropriate restrictions, which is what this bill achieves.
In recent years, the lack of an R18+ rating for video games has seen popular titles refused classification because they are unsuitable to be played by 15-year-olds. It is interesting to note that the average age of Australian computer gamers is 32, with women making up almost half of computer game players. Notably, over 75 per cent of gamers in Australia are over the age of 18. In some cases, publishers of games that are refused classification choose to produce a censored version for the Australian market. Others simply cut their losses and do not introduce the game into Australia. This is bad for the Australian games market, which is growing strongly and is forecast to grow at a rate of about 10 per cent a year, with forecasts predicting that it will reach $2.5 billion annually by 2015. Those are very significant numbers that show what an important industry computer gaming is becoming in our country.
The opposition recognises the contribution of the game development industry to the Australian economy. We also note that more than 88 per cent of Australian households own a device for playing computer games. Australia has 25 major game development studios, which export over $120 million worth of product a year. Australia is the only Western country that does not have an R18+ classification for games. The United Kingdom, the USA, New Zealand and all of the member countries of the European Union have adult classifications for computer games. There is a risk that, if this issue cannot be resolved, Australian gaming companies will be adrift in what is now a $70 billion worldwide industry and that Australian games players, the backbone of the future games production industry, will either be cut out of the leading edge of the creative industry's professions or forced to break customs laws in order to access the games they want to play, which, as I have just noted, others around the world have ready access to.
I want to highlight a couple of real-life inconsistencies from the current classification regime with three games that are available in Australia at the MA15+ level yet are restricted to adults in other like-minded countries. The game called Fallout 3 was initially refused classification by the Classification Board for realistic depictions of drug use. After some minor edits, it is now available to children aged 15 and over in Australia, while like-minded countries restrict the game for sale to adults only. Even with these changes, Fallout 3 is still rated for people 18 years of age and above in Britain, New Zealand and across Europe. In the United States it is rated M17+. In Australia, however, this violent and adult game is legally available for children as young as 15, simply because Australia lacks the capability to restrict games to adults only. Grand Theft Auto IV is the latest in what has been described to me as the infamous adult Grand Theft Auto series. Publishers Rockstar self-censored the game for Australia, making minor cosmetic edits regarding sex acts and blood splatter. It is now available for sale in Australia to children aged 15 and up, while being restricted for sale to adults only in other like-minded jurisdictions. House of the Dead: Overkill was not refused classification in Australia. It contains excessive violence and a high amount of profanity and is available for children aged 15 and over. Meanwhile, overseas rating agencies have classified this game for adults only.
Those, I am told, are just a few examples of games that probably would have been more appropriately classified as R18+, but in Australia were shoehorned into the lesser category of M15+. Clearly, once this new category comes in, it will allow adults to access material—or at least those adults whose tastes run to those types of activities—as is appropriate and as is their right to do so, whilst making sure that it is not available for people under the age of 18, for whom this material might be inappropriate to view. It should be noted that this bill was sent to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for inquiry and the committee recommended that the bill be passed. The committee said that it was satisfied that the evidence demonstrates overwhelming support for an R18+ Restricted classification for computer games. The committee further noted that the bill's aim was not controversial. Rather, it sought to align the existing classification system for computer games with the system that applies to films. The coalition endorses the findings of the committee.
The passage of this bill will no doubt be welcomed by adult gamers all across Australia. It is my understanding—or at least I have been informed—that the industry has been waiting for this change for some time. The coalition view is that the change is a sensible measure as an R18+ category currently applies to other forms of entertainment and all this bill does is bring computer games into line with the way we classify films and other materials, and clearly it makes sense to have one uniform regime for all these different forms of media rather than singling out computer games, where the classification has not been previously available. The coalition therefore do not oppose the passage of this bill. The coalition therefore do not oppose the passage of this bill through the parliament. We welcome the fact that our classification regime will now be a uniform regime, classifying all media according to a single set of criteria and, importantly, making sure that computer games with what might be considered to be questionable content for people who can access the MA15+ category will now be restricted to the R18+ category, as is appropriate. Then the people who are eligible to purchase material within that category can make the decision as adults about what games they purchase and play.
I rise to add some comments on behalf of the Australian Greens that will effectively align with the contribution of Senator Brandis. It is remarkable that, after such an extraordinarily long period of time, finally the parties have come into alignment in this place and are recognising, formally in legislation, that adults should be able to access adult content. So it is a good day: finally, we have got there. The Australian Greens are supportive of the aims of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012 on the basis that adults should be able to view content whether or not it may be appropriate for children.
Senators would be aware that this issue has been under discussion for a great many years. It has been the subject of a number of extensive surveys and consultations. We note, of course, the government's haste, given the bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 15 February and that the committee was expected to conduct an inquiry in 11 working days. But this issue has been extensively canvassed over a long period of time.
Bringing games into Australia's classification system and aligning all materials into the one classification system does make sense, at least at this stage—and I will add some comments towards the end about the limits of the system, as pointed out by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its recent inquiry. Harmonising the system to clearly label and classify games will assist parental supervision of children and minors, as long as the interpretation of various categories is consistent and appealable. That is what I believe the government has done in this case, and we now have a system that meets those basic benchmarks.
The importance of educated and informed parental supervision is only enhanced, in the light of research in the academic and professional community, on the impact of immersive games on children. I think the gaming industry has pointed out the ambiguity in the literature. I think the position we would normally take, whether it be a health or communications related bill, is that we err on the side of caution—we take an approach that is basically precautionary, and I think, again, this bill allows us to do that.
We have a responsibility, while the jury is out on the psychological impacts on young people of immersing themselves in what can be extraordinarily violent environments for hours and hours at a time, to deliberately, carefully protect children, and a classification system that is clear and appealable can only assist in this task.
The committee noted that the actual substance and consequence of the bill lie in the guidelines that will determine how content is classified. A number of submitters who were opposed to the bill, and opposed to creating this tier of classification, pointed out the void where those guidelines should be—and that a lot of work is going to need to be done to make sure that the games that Senator Brandis raised in his contribution, for example, will in fact be reclassified. But, in the absence of the guidelines, we will simply have to make sure that that occurs. The Greens will evaluate those guidelines when they are published to ensure that the process offers the opportunity to re-evaluate and re-classify the material that is currently inappropriately available in the MA15+ bracket. Nearly all submitters, including those representing gamers, acknowledged the introduction of an adult category should be used to re-classify material that had been wrongly classified or amalgamated, as Senator Brandis indicated. The WA Children's Commission and others made specific suggestions for the guidelines, which I think are worthy of consideration. When those guidelines are published, we think that that should probably go back to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.
The ALRC has done us something of a service in looking not just at how we classify games that are distributed according to traditional means, whether they are purchased on DVD in shops or downloaded in online form, stored and played off a computer platform—because we know, just from the development of smart phones, apps and tablets and so on, that it is rapidly becoming an impossible task to identify and then classify, according to Australian standards, the hundreds of thousands of game-like apps and things that are out there. It is simply going to swamp and overwhelm the system. I think the ALRC report is worth reviewing for how it proposes to handle that in the same way that we handle, for example, standards on social media platforms and video file-sharing hosting services—that is, you actually require the audience; you start to rely on the audience to identify content that is offensive or should be age-locked or taken a look at. I think that is something we need to point to.
I am glad that we have got past the suggestion that some overarching government censor be filtering content before the public get to see it. It is something of a relief, actually, that that agenda appears, for the moment at least, to have been set aside from the debate on classifying computer games. This is an industry in relation to which—because of, I guess, a mix of legitimate concerns, but also moral panic because the medium is so new—we have tended to focus on a particular and in fact very narrow strand of the industry. This is an industry that has enormous potential for innovation, for creativity and for Australia to really mark out a niche. We are a very connected, very wide society. We have skills, we have talent—and, I think in one sense, the fact that we have not had an adult category has been a block to that creativity. We are looking to government support for this industry—in the same way as we offer producer offsets for film productions—that involves creative and immersive online entertainment or educational products. We have a big role to play here. I think Australian creative people can really make a big contribution if we give them the support that they deserve.
The industry did go out of its way to make sure that its views were known, which is why it is surprising that it has taken so long for us to get here tonight. To be honest, I was not sure that we ever would. There were 60,000 respondents to the Attorney-General's 2009 consultation—60,000!—98 per cent of which said, 'Yes, of course, adults should be able to view adult content, whether it is online or not. So I look forward to the passage of this bill. I congratulate the government for bringing it forward, and acknowledge also that this is a delay not of the Commonwealth's making—this was held up for a very long period of time, I believe, by the South Australian Attorney-General and the need for these sorts of matters to proceed by consensus through COAG. We got there in the end, so I look forward to voting on this bill.
I rise to indicate my support for the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012. I participated in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into this legislation as, I believe, did you, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin. Although I began with an instinctive belief that we should not be widening the net so as to allow more of what one might call offensive material to be available in regulated form to the general public, particularly children, I did come to the view expressed in this debate by both Senator Brandis and Senator Ludlam that it is better to regulate a particular product for which there is evidence of some quite heavy market demand to ensure that it is possible to provide some limits on what might be available to younger people and even to adults in certain categories of product and to ensure that we offer some satisfaction that people are not buying things which are inappropriate for viewing under any circumstances.
Unlike Senator Brandis, who obviously spoke about these games in what I think would clearly be an absence of any personal experience of them, I have two teenage sons and they are both enthusiastic users of these games and so I can profess to some small experience of how they operate. I have to confess the sorts of games that we are talking about here in the R18+ category are not to my taste or, I suspect, to the taste of most members of this Senate, but it is important to acknowledge, as has been stated in this debate, that we have here products which are very widely sought out by younger people in our community, noting as Senator Brandis did that the average age of computer game consumers in this country is approximately 32 years of age.
It is also very clear that we have had a number of problems with a system which has regulated to the highest level at MA15+ and not to the equivalent level of R18+, which other countries administer. It is true that, with the passage of this legislation, some games which have hitherto been refused classification—that means banned—will now be available in this country. Some might regret that and wish that they were not available. It is also true, however, that some games which properly would have been classified as R18+—available only to adults—have until now, for whatever reason, received an MA15+ classification perhaps because they experience very heavy consumer demand. It was felt that they ought to be available in some form at least in the Australian market. We should not be engineering these sorts of outcomes based on getting around loopholes or inadequacies in the law. We should be attempting to classify material according to the appropriate age group that should be viewing it and, where possible, we should be placing appropriate limits on the sort of material we are talking about, and so minimising the interaction between violence and sexual references. I accept that there is good and bad in this, but I believe that it is better to ensure that we keep games and other material out of the hands of children to the extent that we possibly can, certainly in categories below the age of 15 and categories above the age of 15, or between 15 and 18. I think it is also important to provide some level of assurance that a quality control, if you like, has been imposed on this process.
As a believer in capitalism, I know that where there is a market people will attempt to satisfy that market. At the present time, we are seeing a lot of penetration of that market by material which is not regulated. These days it is possible to get almost anything available over the internet. As a parent, I might not particularly like the sorts of games or things that my children might want to amuse themselves with, but I am greatly reassured if I know that the material that they have legally purchased somewhere has been regulated in a way so as to exclude certain content that might be considered to be completely unacceptable. I would rather that my children were able to access material which had been regulated by the Office of Film and Literature Classification and was available to them rather than something which might be obtained over the internet. That is the point, I believe, of a system such as this.
We need to be realistic about what people expect to be able to see. These days there are wide expectations about what people, even younger people, should be able to look at, and completely ignoring that desire is dangerous and unrealistic. I believe that the government's proposal for an internet filter—which, although it has not been spoken about much in recent years, is still the policy of the Labor government, of Senator Conroy—represents quite an unrealistic attempt to regulate material. A measure such as this is much more realistic because it does hold the prospect of being capable of being regulated and of being applied in a way which is generally fairly uniform. There are always some people who will step outside the system. They will know how to do so and will be able to step outside the system, and no doubt there are some people of quite tender age who are capable of doing that. But if we provide a pathway which is easy and accessible but which is regulated, I think we are doing our younger people a favour.
I might say that these arguments, Madam Acting Deputy President—and I am particularly aware of your own background as a representative of the Northern Territory—are also arguments in favour of the preservation of the X category for erotic material. Given that there is so much which is deeply offensive in relation to sexual content available on the internet, I think there is much to be said for having a category of material which consists only of non-violent erotica available legally for Australians to purchase if they are intent on using such material. So I endorse comments of other colleagues in this debate. I understand that a Bond University study not long ago found that nine out of 10 Aussie homes had a gaming console of one sort or another in them. There is a very large degree of interplay between different forms of media and if something hits the market which people seem to want it is very easy for people to know it is there and get hold of it. The proposed guidelines are certainly an improvement and I think it is important to be able to offer adult users of computer games some assurance about the content of what they are looking at.
There is a question about enforceability. There is some evidence that other aspects of the system of regulation of video materials are not well enforced. This may reflect the fact that there is some unrealism about the way in which the system is constructed, that in the case of X-rated material it is theoretically only available in the two territories but, as we all know, it is widely available throughout the states. Why? Because enforcement is not really undertaken at all. I hope that with a stronger, more effective regulatory system in respect of computer games we will not see that problem occur, that we will be able to say that there is a legal product to consume and those who attempt to peddle material which is not classified should be very strongly sanctioned by the operation of a law which is rigorously enforced.
I commend the government for this process. It has taken a long time. As a former member of the censorship ministers council myself, I know it is extremely difficult to get change to happen through that process, but this change is one which is worth while and I think will help improve the level of protection for vulnerable people in our community who use these sorts of products.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I am pleased to speak on the National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012. The National Water Commission was established in 2005 by the coalition government led by Prime Minister Howard. At that stage Mr Anderson was the Deputy Prime Minister. Both were very cognisant of the importance and significance of drought across eastern Australia and the drought that was afflicting much of the country. It did lead to a water reform agenda that is still very much a work in progress today, especially for, as I have said many times in this place, the Murray-Darling Basin states and the Murray-Darling Basin territory. The National Water Commission has been tasked with a remit that is somewhat broader than just the Murray-Darling aspects, although it does have an important role to play in that regard. The NWC's role is integral to getting water reform right in this country at a much broader level.
This legislation comes before us because the NWC upon its establishment by the Howard government had a sunset clause provision put in place. A review has been conducted by the government cognisant of that sunset clause, and as a result the government has brought forward this legislation to extend the remit of the NWC beyond 30 June 2012. This extension is welcome. On a personal level, I very much value significant parts of the work of the National Water Commission. They have brought an academic rigour, as well as a practical assessment, to the operation and consideration of water policy in Australia. In some ways, they are very much a Productivity Commission type sector or Productivity Commission type organisation, set up very specifically for water policy in Australia. It is important at the urban and regional levels that we get some of the fundamentals of water policy right, that we get the pricing issues right and that we recognise that water is a finite resource that needs to be treated at all levels with respect and priced in a way where users value the water they are using and where, if it is being used for commercial purposes, they get the highest value outcome from it.
That is not to take away from the fact, as we all appreciate, that water is a fundamental staple of human life and that obviously there is a basic human critical need to have access to water, regardless of price considerations. But especially when it comes to irrigation communities around the country it is fundamental that we get the pricing of and therefore the trading and market access to water right. The NWC has a very critical role in assessing the work of state and federal governments in proceeding to get water policy right in this pricing construct.
I have been in this place now for five years and, as I have travelled through irrigation communities and as I did in my previous roles beforehand, I have been very pleased to see a transformation of attitude that has occurred in those irrigation communities, a transformation where farmers no longer just talk to you about the dollar per hectare return they get off the land but now talk to you about the dollar per megalitre return they get off the land. That is a demonstration that the 2004 reforms of the National Water Initiative, which led to the establishment of the National Water Commission and its role, have permeated throughout the Australian water industry and that users of water are now putting a value on water and that, in so doing, they are recognising that it needs to be put to its highest value use.
I hope that, as we get to that end point of ultimately this very long and painful process of adaption to get the Murray-Darling Basin onto a sustainable footing, we will have fully functioning water markets where we can see water traded effectively, free of state barriers—and there are still, shall I say, some non-tariff type barriers that exist between the states that prevent that free and effective trade of water. We will see that free trade occurring that will allow every drop of water that is allocated for irrigation use to eventually flow to and be used by that highest value end point and, in so doing, provide Australians with the best opportunity they have to get the best bang for their buck from this finite amount of water available to us.
The National Water Commission have a very valuable role to play. As we look at this extension of the National Water Commission, they need to be very focused on what that role is. As we go forward, their role in holding the states and the Commonwealth to account for actually delivering on water reform is critical. Their role in providing expert analysis and advice is absolutely critical. But they need to ensure they are focused on those priorities and that will be very important moving into the future. It is not necessarily their role to operate like an academic institution that perhaps produces all sorts of thoughtful research briefs that are not necessarily focused on the core policy outcomes that Australia needs. Valuable though that work is, we must recognise that the finances of this country are, as I am sure Senator Joyce will say, tight, to say the least, and that the dollars allocated to the operation of the National Water Commission in future need to be the minimum amount required to do the job that they have been tasked with. That important job is to see through in the most efficient and effective way the National Water Initiative and the Murray-Darling Basin reforms.
I have particularly appreciated the work of the NWC when I have received copies of their biennial assessment on the Murray-Darling reforms. They are good documents, they are thorough documents and they have called to account governments of all political persuasions for their failure to deliver on promises—failure to deliver on key water infrastructure projects, failure to deliver on achieving the reforms to water market trading as effectively as possible and failure to deliver on the speed of the Murray-Darling Basin reforms. All of these failures have of course mounted at present and what we see right now in water reform in this country is, sadly, a real crisis in confidence, especially when it comes to the Murray-Darling debate—a crisis in confidence in that reform that exists both downstream and upstream. Nobody is happy with the way the debate has gone; nobody is happy with where it is at. To ensure that we have some hope and some chance of getting it back on track we need good, credible independent organisations such as the National Water Commission to call it as they see it, to call it based on the facts, to call it based on expert evidence and to hold governments to account for the key policy principles that they have set out.
I will conclude my remarks there but simply reiterate that, as we move forward with the NWC, they need and the government ministers who work with them need to be as focused as much as anything else on keeping them working to their core objectives. Their core objectives need to be seeing through the National Water Initiative, seeing through the Murray-Darling Basin reform and holding governments to account so that we get that sustainable management of our water resources in a way that is market driven and that ensures that finite water is used for the best possible purchase at the best possible value and causes, be they in our rural communities or in our urban infrastructure.
I rise tonight to speak, in this debate on the National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012, on an issue to do with the National Water Commission. I concur with the remarks of Senator Birmingham and I also acknowledge the support and diligence given to this by Senator Farrell. I have to say—and I do not know whether this is a bipartisan view, but it is a statement of honesty—that at a time of privation that has obviously been brought upon us by the needs of more stringent financial requirements, we always have to be cautious in the extreme about the extension of bureaucracy without a sunset. The National Water Commission was brought in with a sunset clause and it is supposed to come to a conclusion. Were times more provident, so there was more money about, the extension of it would be something of not much consequence. But unfortunately these times mean we have to always start erring on the side of more diligence and away from the purely aspirational. I have to be honest and say there was quite some deliberation about this issue. I am sure that Senator Farrell has acted in a very honourable way. I have conferred with Senator Farrell and confirmed that this was an item of quite some discussion within the coalition. However, after deliberations we have fallen on the side of agreeing to the extension of the National Water Commission, but I think it is important that we put a shot across the bow because I know of people in the coalition—especially Senator Sinodinos, who maybe in the future will have a greater role to play in the financial affairs of our nation; he is on the ERC for the coalition so he has a role to play there—who are always looking for and trying to find savings where they can.
So we have had discussions on the National Water Commission and we will concur on their role continuing but they must, as Senator Birmingham has rightly said, be on their game—because this something where every dollar we spend on the commission is a dollar we cannot spend on health or pensioners or dental care or children or AIDS research or in so many other places. We cannot spend the money twice. So I hope that those within the National Water Commission understand the tenuous nature of the financial predicament that this nation has been put in and how we have to do everything within our power to try and make every dollar count. So what we are really doing now is approving the extension of funds. It was implicit that the commission would actually end on 30 June—not continue but end. However, these are the calls that are made. As to financial management, it is over to those on the other side to make sure that we bring this nation's finances back into account and that we start to reduce our debt, because we cannot go on extending our debt as we do not want to put our nation into a position where, with weeping and the gnashing of teeth, we are trying to work out how we get ourselves out of a dire financial predicament. You only get yourself out of a problem by never getting yourself into a problem. You avoid getting yourself into a problem by being prudent with the finances you are responsible for.
This bill continues the National Water Commission as an independent statutory body beyond its sunset date of 30 June 2012. The National Water Commission was established by the previous coalition government as part of the National Water Initiative agreement of 2004. The main reforms under the National Water Initiative include urban water and access to mining water, which is very prevalent especially with coal seam gas coming to the fore. I note with interest an APPEA report that talks about the direct taxation flow back to the Queensland government between the years 2015 and 2035 of $32 billion and I think the flow back to the federal coffers is in the vicinity of $243 billion. It is in that vicinity; I might have misquoted the figure, but it is about that. The expansion in the size of the Australian economy from coal seam gas alone is in excess of half a trillion dollars. The National Water Commission has a role to play because the by-products of the extraction of coal seam gas are water and also salt. This is a major environmental issue which I know Senator Birmingham is only too well aware of. How we manage that is, I imagine, a role that will also include the National Water Commission as an independent arbiter and a deliberator on the facts that are presented to them.
A review of the National Water Commission was conducted by Dr David Rosalky. It recommended that the National Water Commission continue in its role so that it can carry out these functions because water reform is occurring within 'a highly complex and evolving environment' and requires an independent and specialist institution. The government accepted the Rosalky review's recommendations. Under this bill, the National Water Commission has the responsibility of assessing progress against the National Water Initiative every three years and, in addition, under the Water Act 2007, the National Water Commission may review the Murray-Darling Basin Plan every five years. The National Water Commission also advises on whether plantations can apply for carbon farming credits, which they can do if a state or territory government manages water and interceptions consistent with the National Water Initiative. I acknowledge that in the discussions we had we did look at the prospect of the Productivity Commission doing it and also, under the processes of COAG, COAG having a look at this role. However, the National Water Commission continues, so this bill makes other less substantial changes. The bill closes the Australian Water Fund and the bill will reduce the number of National Water Commission commissioners from seven to five due to the National Water Commission's reduced functions. The National Water Commission plans to have 44 staff in the next financial year, reduced from 63 staff in 2011-12. The National Water Commission has a budget allocation of $34.3 million over the forward estimates.
The coalition will not oppose this bill as the coalition has been a long-term supporter of water reform. The coalition kick-started the water reform process with the establishment of the National Water Initiative in 2004. I would just like to take this opportunity to reflect on how successful the National Water Initiative was and how it remains a model for water reform today. Under the National Water Initiative, it was explicitly recognised that there is a trade-off between economic, social and environmental factors. We can never achieve all of these goals at the same time; we must weigh each up against the others and come to a balanced outcome—what is otherwise known as a triple-bottom-line approach. Achieving a triple-bottom-line outcome is difficult. You will always make some people unhappy, but it is the only way to achieve practical and sensible outcomes.
We must acknowledge that the decisions made about water are some of the most politically sensitive decisions in any nation at any time. If you want to see the source of so many disputes between nations and within nations, you can find no better subject to talk about than water. We can see the alternatives within the debacle that is the current Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The government presented a plan in 2010 which explicitly put the environment above other factors. We saw the result in the near riots there were in regional towns. The government now says that it has a plan that will optimise economic, social and environmental factors, but there are still grave concerns about whether it can achieve this under the plan. The Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs ruled that the act gives priority to the environment above economic and social factors. It was interesting in that report that the net was cast far and wide to get opinions on that issue—from the conservative side, Judith Sloan, to a former Labor Party contestant and candidate, Professor George Williams, and then we went overseas to Professor John Briscoe, from Harvard—and they all came to the same conclusion.
The National Water Initiative also allowed for the development of the Living Murray initiative, which delivered 500 gigalitres of water in a cooperative approach. It is things such as the Living Murray initiative which show what you can do when you get the job right—how you can actually deliver water back to the system when you are diligent and your process has some acumen about it, and when you start basically from a local level and work your way up. You can actually get through this, but you cannot try and deal with it the way we seem to be dealing with it at the moment, which is this macro level of descending from high and above and then expecting people just to swallow your decision. You must give precedence and give some weight to the views of local people and local communities, because you generally find, especially on water, that they know best, and they will work to a process that delivers for you because they know their district better than anybody else. I have found that the RWAMP agreements and WAMP agreements in my state are successful because they started at the local level and then incorporated the local level in the state plan. The state plan brought an outcome and the outcome delivered water back to the river.
The classic example is that in the local area they know which are the effective farms and which are the ineffective farms they can take out of production without causing massive economic dislocation to the area. They also know the sort of capital infrastructure which can provides savings but does not disturb the economic base of the area. Their knowledge is vastly in excess of any knowledge—without being trite about it—of a bureaucrat, who may have the greatest intentions but just does not have the local knowledge to understand exactly how things work on the ground.
The coalition have some concern that the National Water Commission has been stripped of responsibilities by this government to such an extent that we question whether there is a value in maintaining an ongoing body with the overhead costs that this entails. The National Water Commission is left with just two legislative roles: an assessment of progress under the National Water Initiative every three years and a review of the Water Act every five years. Notwithstanding its excellent record, these are reviews that could be performed by the COAG Reform Council or the Productivity Commission. Both of these bodies have had dealings with issues pertaining to water.
The government has also missed the opportunity to give the National Water Commission more responsibility. For example, it has recently agreed to allocate $150 million to improving groundwater research as it relates to the mining sector, in particular the coal seam gas sector. I think that it is absolutely prudent, and we are supporting further research into coal seam gas because we know that this is the issue de jour out there. We know that so many people in both regional Australia and urban Australia have shown great sympathy and understanding of issues pertaining to the coal seam gas disputes that are going on and that people want to make sure we get this right. They understand the economic imperative that we must have a cash flow that sustains our nation, pays our debts and keeps the social functions of our nation going forward, but we must do it in a way that does not destroy aquifers. Aquifers are common property. My town, St George, runs on an aquifer. No aquifer means no town water. No aquifer in western Queensland means no cattle industry.
We also must understand the primary rights of landholders. They have a right to security of water. We cannot be compromising that. And prime agricultural land is an adornment to the nation which should be held in perpetuity without any threat to it whatsoever, because that is how we feed ourselves and that is how we keep ourselves. That is not just an asset for us in the short term; it is an asset for the nation and it should never, ever be compromised. It is more important than the Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Q1 tower on the Gold Coast because all those things can be rebuilt if we get it wrong. But you cannot rebuild prime agricultural land and you cannot rebuild an aquifer. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong and that is it; it is gone forever.
The final thing with coal seam gas is that you must get a fair return back to the landholder. It is absurd to think that an asset that is obtained from an individual's property, which historically the individual owned—hydrocarbonous materials were not vested with the state initially; they were vested in the hands of the individual. Oil, gas and coal were not the assets of the state; they were the assets of the individual. They were the assets of the landholder. In Queensland, that asset was taken from them in 1915, under the Petroleum Act, because of the First World War. The Kaiser has gone, the last time I looked, but the asset was never handed back to the landholder. In South Australia, in Senator Birmingham's state, I think it was in 1971 that they took it from the landholder there. In the territories, it was back in Menzies' time, in 1953, when they took it from the landholder. They only finished taking it from the landholder in New South Wales under the tutelage of the Hon. Neville Wran in 1981. At the stroke of a pen, individuals were divested of their assets and they were vested in the state without any payment whatsoever. On our side of the chamber, we believe the vesting of an individual asset for communal benefit without any payment or recompense is analogous with communism, not with conservatism. If we believe that something should be rightfully held by the community, then the community has a duty to pay the proper price for it. Otherwise you should stay away from it and you should not try to cover the theft with benevolent statements about why it is good to thieve from a person. If it is good to thieve from a person it is even more proper to pay them for it.
Notwithstanding its excellent records, there are reviews that could be performed by COAG, the Reform Council and the Productivity Commission. One is an investigation of the $150 million for improving groundwater research. The National Water Commission has also done some excellent work on water reform, but if it is to continue it needs to have a job to justify its funding. The coalition will continue to monitor and ensure that the money that is appropriated to the National Water Commission helps to encourage water reform. We want to make sure that we get this job right.
The coalition have been open in saying from the start that we are prepared to work with the government to come to a conclusion and we stay at the table for that purpose. The Greens, under Senator Hanson-Young, have openly said that they are throwing Teddy in the dirt and do not want anything more to do with it. We know how hard this subject is and we know that with goodwill, diligent work, luck and the understanding of the whole 2.1 million people who live in the basin we can come up with a plan for the Murray-Darling Basin that respects the social fabric, that maintains the economic base and allows it to grow—because it is important not only for the people in the basin, who, if they were a state, would be a middle tier state in our nation, but also for the nation itself. This is an asset of our nation that produces 40 per cent of our agricultural product and produces 60 per cent of our irrigation product. It has such assets as Deniliquin, which in its production of the staple carbohydrate rice feeds 30 million people a day. We can definitely say that our nation is responsible for some child in Southern Sudan having food in its mouth because our nation produces the food it consumes. If we were to remove that capacity then some person at some point of time in a future period of privation or when food production is scarce will certainly starve to death if we get this wrong. A child in Southern Sudan or someone on the Thai-Burma border will go without and definitely die if we get this wrong. We must look outside our current moral paradigm where we believe that it is encapsulated in the borders of our nation and realise that our decisions on the production of food affect people outside our borders. That is a responsible and mature way to look at these decisions, rather than the myopic way that appears in what is left of the Fairfax papers or in the Australian or on television. It is beyond that and we have a responsibility beyond that. We have to acknowledge that.
For the record, I acknowledge that I am not an irrigator. I live in an irrigation town, but I do not irrigate. I also acknowledge for the record that my family has property below irrigation projects and would dearly love there to be no irrigation because we would get more water. But that is the reality of the world and we have to live with it. This bill goes forward as a non-controversial bill, but I think it is only right that we say to those who are listening—and people in the NWC will be—that we are watching this space extremely closely and our expectation is that absolute diligence will be shown in the expenditure of the Australian taxpayer's money in this field.
The National Water Commission Amendment Bill is a non-controversial bill and the coalition is supporting it. I am happy to support it. I was present at the creation of this body. I was not responsible for it, but I was around at the time and it reflected a determination of the then government that we had to progress water reform. Water reform had been around a long time. There had been some impetus given to it by the Hilmer reforms of the mid-1990s but the truth is that by 2004, when this particular body was set up, there was a view that we needed to go further. This was also at a time when drought was really starting to have an impact on parts of Australia, particularly in eastern and southern Australia.
It is good that there is a sunset clause on the commission. It is important with these bodies that we go back every so often and evaluate their performance to see whether they are performing appropriately; whether their functions are still pertinent, appropriate and relevant. I note in this particular case that Dr Rosalky, a respected former public servant, recommended in his review that the commission continue in its role so that it can carry out these functions because water reform is occurring within 'a highly complex and evolving environment and requires an independent and specialist institution'. Of course, the government has accepted the Rosalky review's recommendations. I think the view of the people who created the commission in 2004 was that that sort of specialist expertise was required at some remove from government. I am advised that over the years there has been some tension between having a body like this and also having a department with a particular water policy responsibility, but I think through the quality of its work the commission has justified its existence.
Under this bill the commission will have responsibility for assessing progress against the National Water Initiative every three years and in addition under the Water Act of 2007 the commission may review the Murray-Darling Basin Plan every five years. That will be quite a challenge, I imagine. The commission also advises on whether plantations can apply for carbon farming credits, which they can only do if a state or territory government manages water exemptions in a way consistent with the initiative. Since its inception the main work of the commission has been to review state and federal governments' progress against the National Water Initiative. It is true to say in that regard that there are a number of areas of outstanding reform which remain under the National Water Initiative, including urban water, access of mining to water, water quality in the environment and river health. To read out that list of areas for reform that remain is to remind ourselves of how difficult water reform can be. The idea of water pricing was controversial at the beginning, because people saw water as an essential item of life and therefore asked how you can price an essential like that. But pricing is in fact the way we deal with a scarce commodity and make sure that it is diverted to its most highly valued users. Some challenges remain in that regard but, on the whole, we are making progress. However, there is more we can do and the commission can play a role in that regard.
I note that in the time the commission has been operating it has administered the Australian Water Fund, which includes Water Smart Australia, the Raising National Water Standards and Community Water Grants programs, promoted national water standards across industry, developed a national water sector training strategy and undertaken general research into water policy issues such as trading of water rights, groundwater and coal seam gas. It is important that we get appropriate information on issues such as trading of water rights, disseminate that information and reject, if you like, through the provision of information some of the myths that sometimes attach to trading of water rights.
The commission has the support of a number of bodies, including within the water industry, to continue and it is generally seen as a body that has produced excellent research. The Australian Water Association argues that the commission helps put moral suasion on federal and state governments to maintain their commitment to water reforms under the National Water Initiative. I think that is right, because it is such a visible body in this particular space. The Water Services Association of Australia believes that funding for research should continue, otherwise more of the costs of producing it would be imposed on the water industry. Importantly, the CSIRO believes that the National Water Commission should continue, because it is important for a body to provide thought leadership to the sector and because helping to set the agenda and educate stakeholders and the community remain very important in this particular light.
I note what Senator Joyce and other colleagues have said about the National Water Commission having been stripped of a number of responsibilities by this government, which led to a bit of a debate within the coalition about the costs and benefits of maintaining the body. In the end we came to the view that in the interests of transparency it was good to maintain the body, but it is a watching brief—we have to make sure that the Commonwealth and the taxpayer get value for money from their investment in this body, even though the amount of money going to the body has been reduced over the forward estimates.
We should think about what further responsibilities we give his body. Having these commissions which are at some arm's length from government, particularly from government departments, is an important part of the process of getting the community to feel more confident about the outcomes of the work of these sorts of bodies. Therefore, it was a bit disappointing that, for example, there was the recent agreement to allocate $150 million to improve groundwater research as it relates to the mining sector, particularly the coal seam gas sector. Rather than being sent to the commission, it was sent to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. If we are serious about evidence based policy making we need to make the best use of these sorts of commissions. Water is an essential of life and having a body that is dedicated to promoting thought leadership in this sector remains crucial in the period ahead.
I will draw here on the contribution of Senator Birmingham: we need to face up to the issues around the Murray-Darling. It is a very difficult issue but it is one to which we have ultimately to find a solution that is in the national interest. Having just spent some time in South Australia with my good friend and colleague Senator Fawcett, who is in the chamber, I was reminded how dependent South Australia is on the Murray and, as you move down the Murray, of the different emotions that the attachment to the Murray-Darling system evoke. We need a solution that is in the national interest. We also need, as Senator Joyce mentioned, an outcome that balances economic, social and environmental outcomes. Having looked at the 2007 legislation, which governs some of these processes, I think it did perhaps lead to some conundrums about balancing the economic, social and environmental. This is a very difficult call, because there are other environmental issues on which we are asked to put the science above the economic and social impacts. As we are seeing in Europe in an entirely different context to do with economic policy, the reality is that you cannot have a set of policies that put one objective above others, because in a complex polity such as ours there are all sorts of interests that have to be balanced.
That said, I look forward to the work I can do with my colleagues, particularly on the Murray-Darling. It is a difficult problem, but it is in the interest of the coalition, which has so much at stake in the health of the Murray-Darling system—the truth of it is that most if not all of the seats that abut the Murray-Darling are coalition seats—to find an approach which balances all stakeholders. I look forward to working with my coalition colleagues on that. That said, this is a non-controversial bill, and I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of the commission. I believe that it has justified its continued existence and hopefully will continue to provide thought leadership.
I thank all three contributors—Senator Birmingham, Senator Joyce and Senator Sinodinos—to the debate on this bill. I think they all showed a great understanding of the issue about which we are here tonight—the continuation of the National Water Commission through the National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012.
Three issues that were raised in submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications require a response. The National Water Commission's Murray-Darling Basin Plan audit function is enshrined in the Water Act 2007. This bill allows for the Water Commission to undertake any function conferred by another law of the Commonwealth; this includes work required under the act. On the reporting role of COAG, it is envisaged that the National Water Commission would formally engage with COAG subcommittees at least annually, including providing regular advice on its activities. The bill provides for the commission to produce a range of strategic studies and advice, including COAG requested studies and analysis, the provision of advice and recommendations about any Commonwealth water program at the minister's request. Further, the Standing Council on Environment and Water is expected to consider this year the national water knowledge and research platform, which will include mechanisms for the improved coordination of water related research. Again, I thank all of the senators for their contributions and I commend this bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The coalition will not oppose these bills. These bills give effect to various taxation changes that were announced in the 2012-13 budget. Although the coalition may not have introduced many of these changes in government, given the fiscal mess the Australian government is in after 4½ years or so of bad, dysfunctional and incompetent Labor government the coalition will not oppose these changes.
The Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 3) Bill 2012 creates a new final withholding tax regime that applies to income derived by non-resident workers participating in the Seasonal Labour Mobility Program. It also makes technical amendments to ensure that the 2011 alternative fuels and clean energy legislation works as intended. It will also remove eligibility for the low-income tax offset on unearned income of minors with some retrospective application. Though claimed to be giving effect to a previously announced measure, it exempts clean energy payments made to recipients of payments received on a variety of government payment schemes and it also implements the government's budget measure so that the taxable component of employee termination payments that takes an individual's total taxable income in a year above $180,000 would be taxed at marginal rates.
The Income Tax (Seasonal Labour Mobility Program Withholding Tax) Bill 2012 provides for the formal imposition of income tax in the establishment of the applicable tax rate to give effect to the final withholding tax regime that would apply to income derived by non-resident workers participating in the Seasonal Labour Mobility Program.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Income Tax Rates) Bill 2012 merges the first two personal marginal tax rates and thresholds for nonresidents into a single threshold and aligns the rate of this new threshold to the second marginal tax rate for residents—32½ per cent from 1 July 2012 and 33 per cent from 1 July 2015.
Some of these measures are just fixes but other measures have a more serious impact. These are measures that are pursued by a government that over the last four years have taken a strong budget position with no government net debt, a $22 billion surplus and $70 billion of past surpluses invested in the Future Fund and turned that around in four short budgets to take us to a position with $174 billion worth of accumulated deficits taking us back to $145 billion worth of government net debt.
This is from the government that told us in the lead-up to the last election that somehow we were on a journey back to an early surplus. As part of this journey back to an early surplus somehow we were meant to believe that this financial year the deficit would be $10 billion. That is what this dishonest Treasurer, Wayne Swan, told us in his economic update in 2010. The deficit was supposed to be $10 billion this financial year. Of course, we know now that we are heading for a deficit this financial year of $44.4 billion. Since the election just shy of two years ago, the budget position this financial year has deteriorated by an absolutely staggering $34.4 billion. But the government is expecting us to believe based on the most heroic revenue assumptions for 2012-13, the most heroic spending-cut assumptions for 2012-13 and the most heroic assumptions of what the government might do in the next financial year that somehow we are going to have this $1½ billion wafer-thin surplus.
Of course, we will not know what the final budget outcome for 2012-13 will be until September 2013, which I suspect was conveniently timed to coincide with the period after the next election. When the Treasurer promised Australians to take the budget back to surplus in 2012-13 he would have known that he was quite safe in the fact that he would never have to be accountable for that promise because there would be two elections between him making that promise and somebody having to be accountable for that promise. I do not think that even our Treasurer, Mr Swan, expects to be around to deliver the final budget outcome for 2012-13 in September 2013. Hopefully the judgment of the Australian people at the next election will be a vote for a return of good government for sound economic and fiscal management with the election of a coalition government under the leadership of Tony Abbott so that we can, yet again, fix up Labor's fiscal mess. That is obviously what all of us on this side of the chamber are working on—a return of good, sound fiscal and economic management under the leadership of Tony Abbott. But even if, against all expectations, Labor was able to scrape in again, which for the sake of all Australians I hope will not happen, there is obviously nobody who expects that Wayne Swan would still be the Treasurer after the next election. It was an easy promise for him to make, one that he knows he will never be held to account for. Looking at Labor's past track record, both over the period of this government and over the period of previous governments, at both the state and federal level, we all know and people across Australia instinctively know that the Labor Party in government always stuffs up our public finances. The Labor Party in government always leaves the budget in a mess and it always comes down to the coalition to fix up the mess that Labor left behind. But because Labor spend too much, because they constantly borrow too much, they are always casting around for more taxes, for more increased charges.
This is a government that has given us more than 20 new or increased taxes in the period it has been in government. It is quite extraordinary that, despite having introduced more than 20 new or increased taxes and despite having the best terms of trade in 140 years, Labor are still not able to balance the books. Despite all of these new taxes, despite having the best terms of trade in 140 years and despite being in, quite frankly, the best region in the world in terms of being able to benefit from our engagement with the rapidly growing economies of China, India and so on, this government, at this very good time in our economic history, has not been able to balance the books. If the government cannot balance the books now, if it cannot deliver a balanced budget now, when will it ever do it?
Of course, a promise of a surplus budget means nothing. Words are very cheap. As I mentioned earlier, in the lead-up to the last election, one month out from the last election, the Treasurer promised the Australian people that the deficit this financial year would be 'only $10 billion'. We know that it is $44.4 billion. So everybody who is a serious analyst or a serious observer of this government's track record and anybody who is a student of how this government is likely to perform in the future would come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no prospect that this government will deliver a surplus budget rather than just promise one.
With those few words, I will again focus on the fact that these bills include a series of measures some of which the coalition clearly would not have pursued in government. However, given the fiscal mess that this government is in after 4½ years or so of Labor administration, the coalition will not oppose these changes. But we reserve the right to revisit some of these issues in government.
I think it is fair to say that Labor will not 'scrape back in' at the next election; it will comfortably win the next election because of Wayne Swan's economic ability to deliver low inflation, low unemployment and high growth. But I would like to thank all senators and commend the bills to the parliament.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires the bills to be considered in the Committee of the Whole. I call the minister.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Let me share a few facts with you about cancer. One in two Australians will be diagnosed with cancer by the age of 85. Cancer is the leading cause of death in Australia. More than 43,000 people were estimated to have died from cancer in 2010. Nearly 15,000 more people die each year from cancer than 30 years ago, and this is due mainly to population growth and ageing.
While these statistics are sobering, there is also a great deal of positive news about cancer in Australia. For example, while the overall number of deaths from cancer has increased, the death rate—measured in numbers of deaths per 100,000 people—has actually fallen by 16 per cent. More than 60 per cent of cancer patients will survive more than five years after diagnosis, and for many common cancers the survival rate has increased by 30 per cent over the last two decades.
For much of the good news we have the Cancer Council of Australia to thank. As Australia's peak national non-government cancer organisation, the Cancer Council of Australia advises the Australian government and other bodies on practices and policies to help prevent, detect and treat cancer. The Cancer Council also advocates for the rights of cancer patients to get the best treatment and supportive care.
I know about the fear and uncertainty that comes from being told that you have been diagnosed with cancer. I know what it is like to hear that dreaded word 'cancer' and I am testament to the fact that cancer is not necessarily a death sentence. I know, as I said earlier, survival rates for cancer continue to improve over time. I was fortunate that when I was diagnosed I was treated early and able to make a full recovery.
My personal experience with cancer has been a powerful motivator for me to join the fight against this disease. Among other things, I am now a regular participant in the Cancer Council's major fundraiser, Relay for Life. Relay for Life involves teams of participants walking or jogging around a track for about 20 hours. The event is held overnight, and each team has a baton which they are encouraged to keep moving for the whole event. This means that team members must work in shifts to make sure their baton stays on the track throughout the night and the early hours of the morning. The reason for the overnight effort is to promote understanding that, for many people suffering from cancer, there is little respite from the disease.
In the lead-up to the event, team members seek sponsorship for their efforts or the teams hold fundraising events such as barbecues or quiz nights. Relay for Life is held at various locations around Australia, and only last year—2011—started being held at the PCYC oval in Huonville in Southern Tasmania. I entered a team, Catryna's Crusaders, in the Huon Valley event last year, and it was a pleasure to do so again this year. In our first year my team managed to raise $1,700 for the Cancer Council. We have improved on that fundraising in 2012 and have raised $2,500.
One of the things I like most about Relay for Life is the atmosphere of the event and the way everyone is working towards the one goal. There is a stage with music performances, a tug of war, a three-legged race competition and a series of ceremonies, including the opening and closing ceremonies, the luminary ceremony and the survivors' lap. The luminary ceremony is particularly moving. Late in the evening, the teams stop walking and running around the track for a short while. Candles are lit and placed around the edge of the track in memory of family and loved ones who have died of cancer. A minute's silence is observed, and helium balloons with lights inside them are released into the night sky. It is quite an emotional experience watching those balloons fly off into the darkness. The organisers encourage participants to really get into the spirit of the event and offer prizes for the best team site, the best baton and the most laps. There are also prizes for the highest team and individual fundraising totals.
For those who have not yet participated in Relay for Life, it is important to understand that it is not just a fundraiser. Relay for Life symbolises the fight against cancer. It recognises and celebrates survivors as well as the lives of sufferers who have lost the battle. It is a great family and community event. I participate in Relay for Life for all these reasons and more.
I would like to thank the members of my team, who worked together tirelessly to keep our baton going through the early hours of the morning. They include my husband, Robert; Dan; Scott; Colleen; Anna; Jackson; Laura; Octavia; Jeffrey; and the youngest member of my team, Caleb, who recently celebrated his ninth birthday. As well as participating for the weekend they also did an excellent job supporting the fundraising effort. I would also like to thank the organising committee for the Huon Valley Relay, and also the Lions Club of Huon and the Huon Valley branch of Rural Youth for their support of the event.
I also wish to thank sincerely the many people who sponsored Catryna's Crusaders. Among the sponsors of my team were several of my parliamentary colleagues, including, in this place, Senator Carol Brown, Senator Furner, Senator McEwen, Senator Singh, Senator Moore and Senator Faulkner. I also have some sponsors in the other place, including the member for Franklin, Julie Collins; the member for McEwen, Rob Mitchell; the member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd; the Member for Deakin, Mark Symon; and the member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh. I would also like to acknowledge a donation from my state colleague and Premier of Tasmania, Lara Giddings. All of these donations, and the others, have contributed to a team total of $2,500 for Catryna's Crusaders.
While the number of teams in the Huon Valley event was down on the previous year, from 16 to 12, there were still over 300 participants. This year and last year the Huon Valley event raised around $60,000. This is quite significant. Australia wide, Relay for Life each year raises roughly $1 for every Australian. However, my home state of Tasmania punches above its weight—yet again—and each year raises nearly $1 million, or almost $2 for every Tasmanian. The Huon Valley's fundraising effort equates roughly to $4 for each resident of the Huon Valley. It just goes to show what an incredible commitment this small but dedicated community has to fighting cancer, and I am very proud to be part of that effort.
While I understand that the Huon Valley Relay for Life may be taking a break in 2013, I will be ready to participate whenever they have their next event. However, I do look forward to the day when my team and Relay for Life as a whole are unnecessary. That will be the day when advances in medical technology have delivered us a world that is free of cancer. The steps that we take in Relay for Life symbolise the steps towards that vision. Every dollar we raise brings us closer to achieving it. I am confident that the goal of a cancer-free world can be achieved within my lifetime, and I encourage all senators in this place to join me on this journey.
While Relay for Life comes around once a year, the Cancer Council has a variety of other fundraisers, including Australia's Biggest Morning Tea. Australia's Biggest Morning Tea has been held every year since 1994 and in that time has raised over $70 million. On 6 June this year I held a morning tea in my office in Kingston as part of this national fundraiser, and I had about 20 local guests attend. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my staff for their work in helping to organise the morning tea, and I would also like to acknowledge the generous support of two local businesses south of Hobart in Tasmania, and they are Snuggle Down and Flynn's Café, who both donated prizes. The morning tea in my office raised another $260 to support the Cancer Council and their fantastic work.
I would like to conclude this contribution by taking the opportunity to pay my respects to the late Senator Judith Adams. Ironically, Senator Adams lost her battle with cancer on the same weekend that I was participating in Relay for Life. Perhaps senators would like to reflect on this when their local Relay for Life events, or other Cancer Council fundraisers, come up. In memory of Senator Adams, and everyone else who has lost their battle with cancer, I encourage you all to make a donation to the Cancer Council, to join or start up a team in your local Relay next year or to host a morning tea. I believe that together we can help make cancer a thing of the past.
Tonight I rise to speak about hope—which may sound a rather odd topic for an adjournment debate, but I think it actually flows, in a sense, quite seamlessly from Senator Bilyk's contribution, which was about hope and about setting the goal of a cancer-free world. The reason I want to talk about hope is that, notwithstanding our obviously good economic circumstances, particularly compared with those overseas, this does seem to be a time when so many Australians are despondent and cynical about politics, the parliamentary process, the negative 24-hour media cycle, the nay-sayers and the cutting down of tall poppies. It does seem to be a time when we should try to reaffirm the importance of putting hope back on the national agenda. I note that Tony Abbott talks about hope, reward and opportunity. It is a time when the Australian people lack confidence in their own economic circumstances as they deal with financial stresses resulting from cost-of-living pressures and job security concerns. It is a time, in other words, for hope to be restored.
In my maiden speech I talked about the overwhelming duty we have as politicians to be purveyors of hope. That is the business we are in. There is no greater motivator than the belief in a better tomorrow. As the 19th century American author Orison Swett Marden wrote:
There is no medicine like hope, no incentive so great, and no tonic so powerful as expectation of something tomorrow.
Let there be no doubt that hope is important to Australia. If we are to prosper in this century then our people must not only expect that their tomorrow will be better than their today but they must have confidence and the ability to shape their tomorrow as they have imagined it.
For a word that carries so much meaning, we as politicians must do more than simply utter the word. We must take action, lead by example and demonstrate that in this country tomorrow we will always have the potential to be better than today. As I have previously said, we must offer our fellow citizens the hope of a better life for them and for future generations, the hope that, free from material worries, they are able to pursue their highest aspirations. Making hope real and restoring belief within the community is not about politicians simply selecting policies from some catalogue and hoping that they strike a chord with the electorate. It is about developing and implementing polices that have a positive and substantive impact on the lives of our fellow Australians. It is about how we conduct the process of public debate and engage in a national conversation on the issues that matter.
The Australian public crave authenticity in their leaders. We must be true to ourselves, and Australians will respond. They may not always agree, and it is not a sure road to popularity. But the public respect the capacity to stand up for principles. It means that if we wish to pursue reform we must build a constituency for change—not reform by stealth, but standing in the marketplace of ideas and selling the case for change. It means managing expectations, acknowledging costs and explaining benefits when we are promoting change. Even when consensus is difficult to achieve, we must resist the temptation to pit one group of Australians against another. That is about how we conduct ourselves and how, if we improve the way we conduct ourselves, that in itself gives hope to our fellow citizens.
When it comes to hopelessness, or the lack of hope, I am particularly struck by the following statistic: in 2010 Australia had a higher rate of suicide than the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Greece. How can it be that Australians, who have more opportunities and are experiencing superior economic conditions, are choosing to take their lives at a higher rate than in comparable nations? This does not seem to make sense. Apart from anything else, we seem to be suffering from a deficit of hope. For those who decide to take their own lives they have made the calculation, whether consciously or subconsciously, that tomorrow and the days following will not be better than today.
As a senator I do not believe there is any one policy, motion or piece of legislation that I can introduce that is going to solve this conundrum. There is no easy fix for this alarming trend. Mental health is complex and still carries a stigma. But this pressing issue requires us to engage in a broad national conversation involving a broad coalition of Australians from all walks of life. I mention it because it is a particular aspect of this trend we seem to have in Australia of not having the hope that we should have, given our very good prospects in the years ahead.
To progress will require a realisation that within Australia there is a divide opening up between what you might describe as the cultural optimists and the cultural pessimists. Winston Churchill once famously said:
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
When I walk the streets of my home town in Sydney I encounter so many of my fellow Australians who are aspirational. They are looking to government to help them achieve their ideals rather than penalise or punish them for getting ahead.
As an economist I have some understanding of how markets work, why humans instinctively trade, why markets naturally form, how wealth is created, why poverty exists, how poor people can become rich and how rich people can become poor. In that regard, I think I understand the importance of political, economic and social freedom—and why freedom of the individual must be at the centre of the economy.
Kevin Rudd, in his maiden speech, and again during the global financial crisis, spoke of his aspiration of putting government at the centre of the economy. Our aspiration should be to put people, to put workers and entrepreneurs, at the centre of the economy. I understand that freedom carries responsibility, but it is also empowering; and that the role of government is to best equip individuals to succeed in this environment.
Too often under this government I think we have seen a dated and protectionist view of the role of government. Allegedly in the name of fairness the government has focused too often on protecting people from themselves through increased regulation and reliance on third parties such as trade unions to mediate the concerns of workers. Rather than being the purveyors of hope, the government conveys a pessimistic view of human nature. The government's message is that, without government interposing, someone is out to take advantage of you: the big miners, the big banks, unethical employers, senior executives, profiteers, shonky tradesmen—and the list goes on and on. If Australia is to succeed we must choose hope over fear and embrace a national agenda based on aspirations, a relentless optimism about our future, a global mindset and, most importantly, an outward looking and positive culture.
May I conclude by congratulating Karise Eden, who this evening won The Voice. Karise is from the Central Coast of New South Wales. She is the quintessential battler. She had a hard upbringing; she had a tough time at home and left home early. She did not know for a long time what she wanted to do, and she took whatever job came her way. But, as fate would have it, The Voice came along, she applied, she was accepted and now she has won—and this will probably change her life. This to me is a great example of hope in operation—of having a goal and going after it. She is a great inspiration, not only to the kids of the Central Coast, where youth unemployment is extremely high by Australian standards, but she is an inspiration and example to kids everywhere in Australia and all Australians. I congratulate her and I hope that, in the near future, there can be an opportunity to recognise her contribution in this place. Her contribution is important because it gives hope to other young people and it gives hope to all of us, that if we find the right key we can help anyone and everybody to have the right sort of future. And in the days and weeks ahead, I hope Karise can continue to evolve as a role model around Australia. I take the opportunity to congratulate The Voiceas a program, and David Gyngell, the CEO of Channel Nine, for putting it together, because I think it has been a wonderful opportunity to bring Australians together to promote some very talented people in our midst.
Refugee week, under the theme 'Restoring Hope' is being marked by a number of events. Once Refugee Week consisted of events celebrating the enormous contribution refugees have made to Australia. These days, while we continue to celebrate and recognise the work of refugees during this special week, criticism of the politicisation of refugee rights also dominates debate. The way the coalition and the Labor Party attempt to outdo each other with divisive policies on so-called 'boat people' and 'border security' represents a dark time in Australia's history. These policies are destroying lives, and a film I recently saw illustrates this in a most distressing way.
The cruelty embodied in the policies that the government and opposition impose on refugees, who have a right to seek asylum in our country, was brought home to me when I attended a preview of the film Between the Devil and Deep Blue Sea. This very powerful film asks the question: what leads someone to become a boat person? This is an outstanding documentary that I highly recommend. It has won international awards, including Honourable Mention Winner, Los Angeles Movie Awards; official selection, Gasparilla International Film Festival; UK Film Festival; official selection, Thin Line Film Festival; official selection, 60N Film Festival, Norway; winner Best Documentary, European Independent Film Festival; and winner, Accolade Award, Honolulu Film Festival Awards. Despite winning these awards, the producers have not been able to secure screening for broadcast in Australia. I find that concerning. This film deserves to be widely viewed. The official launch of this 52-minute documentary will occur in Melbourne tomorrow, at the Astor Theatre. More information on the film, which is a collaboration between Amnesty International, the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre and Mission Travel, can be found at www.deepblueseafilm.com. The award-winning documentary was written and produced by Jessie Taylor and David Schmidt. Jessie Taylor is a remarkably brave young woman. She is a lawyer and refugee advocate who has been fighting for the rights of asylum seekers and refugees for many years now. At the age of 27 she fostered a 14-year-old refugee she had met at an Indonesian detention jail years earlier.
In Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, Jessie travels with Ali Reza Sadiqi, her translator, across Indonesia to meet with 250 asylum seekers in jails, detention centres and hostels. They use hidden cameras and secret interviews to take us into the desperate and distressing world of asylum seekers, telling us their stories firsthand to explain why so many decide to leave everything behind to become boat people. As I watched the film, I felt I more clearly understood why these people left their home and their country and set out on what too often is such a dangerous trip.
The film introduced us to many people. Viewers come to know these people, and I found that I started to share their hope that, despite current government policy, eventually they would be able to settle in Australia. However, the reality is very different. The final minutes of the film are deeply sad. It is so moving when we learn of the fate of the people we have come to know. So many are missing, feared drowned—families, children, young men travelling alone. Some of the people featured in the film have settled in Australia and, like the overwhelming majority of refugees, are leading productive lives that enrich our life.
Despite these few success stories, the overwhelming impact of the film is one of immense sadness and immense shame that Australia is associated with such cruel policies. Most of us at the preview screening were in tears by the time the film ended. It was hard to feel any sense of hope when we learnt the terrible fate of so many. Australia's inhumanity towards men, women and children who are fleeing dangerous situations in their home countries to try and seek refuge in our great land must not continue. I strongly urge the ABC and SBS to screen this documentary. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea is part of Australian life. It should not be censored from viewing on our public broadcasters.
I had the pleasure of meeting two young refugees at a Refugee Week event held at Blacktown and organised by the Greens New South Wales Refugee Working Group. Juma Abraham is from South Sudan. He now works as a case manager at Break Thru People Solutions in Blacktown, helping clients with mental health conditions to find employment. He was eight years old when his village was destroyed in the second Sudanese civil war. He lost contact with his father and ended up walking through vast areas of Africa. Six years later, after experiencing years of hardship and deprivation on the road and in refugee camps, he found his father in Australia.
Juma's story of his early Australian experiences are a further reminder of the challenges refugees face even once they find a home in our community. Juma explained that he could not speak or understand English. Juma said: 'Initially when I arrived in Australia, the feelings and emotions that were experienced in the refugee camps were still present. Although there was no fear of danger or war, there were still the feelings of isolation, trying to fit in and connect with people and a slight fear of the unknown.' Now, 10 years on, Juma has completed his high school education and is studying a Bachelor of Psychology and working full time as a case manager at Break Thru People Solutions. Juma now helps clients with mental health conditions to find employment.
Masihullah Mobin, a Hazara refugee from Afghanistan, also spoke at the Blacktown Refugee Week event. His parents had arranged for some relatives to take him out of Afghanistan when he was 15 years old, as the whole family feared for their lives. He was fortunate to survive when a boat he was travelling in capsized, but nine of his companions, including his uncle, died. He was then on his own, away from all his family. He was beaten and imprisoned by Indonesian police. In 2009, the UNHCR accepted him as a refugee but they left him in an Indonesian jail. Masi was in that jail for two years because he did not have any money. Others who did have money got out after two or three days. When one of his friends eventually paid $1,000, he was released. Masi is now at Marrickville High School studying hard.
There must be an alternative to the leaky boat route and it needs to be one that recognises the human rights of these people and the economic benefits orderly settlement entails. It was an absolute delight to meet Masi and Juma, and see how they are now part of Australian society and are looking forward to a safe and happy future, having suffered so much in their home countries. It was moving to hear how thankful they are for the opportunities they have been given by being allowed to stay in Australia. Had these two young men not left their countries, Sudan and Afghanistan, they may not even be alive now. I would encourage everyone to watch this film and again I urge either SBS or ABC to revisit their decision, as this is definitely a very important film to show. Once again, I congratulate and thank Jessie, David and Ali for making a very important film. I really do hope that people take the time to watch it. It is critical that Australia returns to a bipartisan approach to refugees.
Recently, former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser spoke about refugee settlement when he gave the annual 2012 Whitlam Oration. Mr Fraser reflected on a time when Australia's political leaders did not use refugees as a way to muster votes. Mr Fraser stated:
At the end of the Vietnam War, tens upon tens of thousands of Indo-Chinese sought to flee to safety. Initially the Whitlam Government decision was to have limited numbers of people from Vietnam. My Government made the decision to take large numbers of people. Gough Whitlam did not play politics with this. It would have been easy to do. Instead he led his party to fully accept the convention of the post war years. Bipartisanship on issues of immigration was maintained. This bipartisanship was fundamentally important. It shows that political conflict can live alongside the sustaining of a shared, deep respect for people regardless of colour, race or religion, a belief that people should be respected for who they are. The capacity to engage in conflict and maintain such a respect depends on a degree of consensus between political leaders. Gough Whitlam and I participated in this consensus.
Mr Fraser further stated:
Our treatment of refugees, and the poisonous debate engaged in by our major political parties has done Australia much harm throughout our region.
If Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam, after the momentous events of 1975, can agree on refugee policy, current political leaders can bury their differences and bad policies, and show compassion, humanity and leadership on refugee settlement. That would be the way to truly celebrate Refugee Week.
I rise to speak tonight about the tragic plight of hens and the recent policy shift that has occurred in my state of Tasmania in regard to their treatment and care, through the banning of future battery hen facilities in Tasmania and an end to battery hen operations in the state. In 2011, each Australian consumed on average 192 eggs per year. Of the eggs sold in 2011, 34 per cent were laid by hens in free-range environments and nine per cent in barn environments—a huge increase on the combined total of 20.6 per cent in these more tolerable and humane environments for hens as recently as 2005. But, despite this change, over the past six years the majority of eggs, around 55 per cent, are still collected from hens who spend their lives in cramped, usually dark and sometimes suffocating and crushing cages.
Most battery hens in Australia, of which there are about 12 million, live in a space smaller than one A4 sheet of paper. Their instincts to spread their wings, clean themselves and move around are constantly frustrated, and brushing up against the wire mesh that imprisons them causes them to lose their feathers. They are expected to labour in that space for up to 18 months, producing an egg every 30 hours, before their egg-laying rate declines and they are considered at the end of their useful life, and disposed of accordingly. By the time they die, usually having lived less than 20 per cent of their natural lives, one in six hens will have broken bones sustained as a result of muscle and bone weakness caused by drastically limited range of movement, not usually being able to stand due to the low roofs in their cages. By any measure, these animals live miserable lives in producing a product that most of us take for granted every day. The production of eggs in Australia is guided by the model code of practice for the welfare of animals for domestic poultry, a voluntary code which has been recognised by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council which effectively shields the industry from scrutiny of the conditions in which it keeps hens and allows the industry to market their products to consumers according to industry developed standards. These standards include the terms to which I referred earlier—cage eggs, barn eggs and free-range eggs—and they can be modified. And, despite the hope and belief of many in the community that these standards would be progressively improved, there are a number of changes under consideration right now that would actually worsen conditions for hens.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is currently considering a trademark application lodged by the Australian Egg Corporation that would allow farms with up to 20,000 hens on a single hectare to label their eggs as 'free range', despite the fact that the current standard for 'free range' is set at 1,500 hens per hectare. Submissions to this determination close this Wednesday, 20 June. There are many considerations involved in that determination, including whether stocking densities are a core part of free-range egg production and whether those densities are to the public good. Regardless of the decision the ACCC makes, I have grave concerns about any step that further exacerbates the already appalling conditions for so many of these creatures.
In my view, there is little justification for such appalling treatment of hens or of any other animal which we rely on, or choose to raise, for food. I do not think that one has to have a dogmatic or strict approach to vegetarianism or veganism to find the excessive cruelty and brutality of battery-hen egg production practices nauseating and unnecessary. Certainly, I believe that we have a responsibility to reduce suffering wherever we can—an obligation that extends to nonhumans such as animals, and others who are not able to speak for themselves. Our treatment of those over whom we exercise such total power reflects the character of our community, and I do not think battery-hen conditions are a good or true reflection of our community.
This issue has been a constant source of community discussion in Tasmania for 30 years or more, thanks in part to the staunch advocacy of community members like the late Pam Clarke, known as 'the chook woman', who began campaigning against conditions in battery farms in 1978. In relation to Pam Clarke, Dr Alison Alexander wrote:
Hens were debeaked, kept in tiny cages and never saw daylight. Clarke thought once the authorities knew of the situation, it would stop. She protested to parliament, rang a bell to interrupt speakers, danced with a two-metre high hen, Battery Bertha, on the steps of Parliament House, and tried physically to free battery hens from farms. Her protests caused her to be charged more than fifty times, and she spent eight days in eight stints in Risdon Gaol.
In addition to Pam Clarke's activism, we have had other activists and organisations—like Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania—pick up the fight against battery-hen farming. Along the way, those activists were successful in bringing the plight of these animals to the attention of the Tasmanian parliament and its parliamentarians. I want to acknowledge my former ministerial colleague the Hon. David Llewellyn AM, who worked long and hard to bring national attention to this issue. In 2008, he introduced in the Tasmanian parliament a bill to ensure minimal standards of welfare and a duty of care for farmers in charge of animals. I remember discussing how I often noticed that the free-range eggs on the supermarket shelves—and this continues today—were often all gone and it was only the cage eggs that remained, with many people having no choice but to purchase those caged eggs. What that showed then and continues to show today is that the community and consumers are starting to be more and more aware of what they purchase and that they prefer to purchase free-range eggs. I know that well-known chef Kylie Kwong makes a deliberate approach of only using free-range eggs in her restaurants. In fact, a number of restaurants now actually put it on their menus that they use free-range eggs, to assure consumers about what they are eating.
David Llewellyn has now left the Tasmanian parliament, but his views have been reflected in the Tasmanian Labor government's recent decision to support primary producers involved in intensive farming to transition out of battery egg production and in the commitment of Minister Bryan Green to ban future battery facilities. The government announced last month, in the lead-up to the Tasmanian state budget, that it would immediately ban any future battery hen operations and cap the number of existing pens in production. Minister Green is working with the industry to develop a transition plan which will see an end to battery hen operations in Tasmania and instead see the demand for locally produced eggs, particularly free range, as the market trend. I am pleased to learn that the Tasmanian industry acknowledges it is time for such a change and that it will work with the government during the transition.
The Tasmanian government's commitment also extends to the phasing out of sow stalls by the middle of next year, fully four years before the pork industry's target of 2017. The problems posed by pregnant-sow crates are similar to those faced by battery hens: limited movement that creates frailness, fear and stress in animals that are counted only as productive units. I want to recognise the courage of Minister Green and others in the government, not least Premier Lara Giddings and member for Lyons, Rebecca White, whose approach to this issue is based not only on compassion towards these vulnerable animals but also on recognising that Tasmania has a unique place in the nation in producing premium, pure and ethical foods.
Senate a djourned at 22:2 7
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister representing the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, upon notice, on 21 September 2011:
For the department and each agency in the Minister's portfolio, can details be provided of the location of all offices, and for each office:
(a) the address;
(b) whether the building is:
(i) leased, or
(ii) owned;
(c) the size;
(d) how many staff are based in the building;
(e) if leased, what is the cost of the lease;
(f) if owned, what is the value of the building; and
(g) if owned, what is the depreciation of the building.
The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
A Property Data Summary for DEEWR and its agencies is at Attachment A.
This information is effective as at 17 November 2011, and therefore does not reflect the Machinery of Government changes announced by the Prime Minister on 12 December 2011.
DEEWR and its agencies lease all office space. That is, no buildings are owned.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, upon notice, on 31 October 2011:
(1) In regard to internal product (Outcome 1):
(a) has the department had any internal audits of its internal processes conducted since 1 July 2007
(b) is there an internal Audit Committee within the department; if so:
(i) who is on the committee
(ii) what is the role of the committee
(iii) do the reports of the committee go to the Secretary of the department; if so, can copies be provided; if not, why not and do these reports go to an external audit committee
(c) have any audits been conducted on the quality of departmental decision making in relation to applications from Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs); if so:
(i) were these audits conducted by internal or external agencies
(ii) what did those audits reveal
(iii) were the audits on positive and negative decisions or just negative decisions
(iv) who conducted the audits and at what cost
(v) can copies of the audits be provided; if not, why not
(vi) are there any other mechanisms for looking at departmental decision making; if so, what are they
(vii) is the department concerned about inconsistency between decision makers, and what is the scope of that inconsistency on the caseloads of Iranians, Sri Lankans, Iraqis and Afghanis
(viii) what other audits have been conducted
(ix) have those audits been made public; if none, why not
(x) can copies of those audits be provided; if not, why not
(xi) how many cases does each case manager handle at any one time
(xii) what has been the highest number handled by individual case managers and when was that
(xiii) what is the spread of cases
(xiv) are they all from IMA applicants
(d) has the department received any requests by any agency or individuals to change the name of IMAs or other applicants after they have received their visas; if so, what are the reasons that people ask for their names to be changed on personal records.
(2) In regard to offshore detention (Outcome 4):
(a) how many Serco officers were on duty on 18 October 2011 at the Northern Immigration Detention Centre
(b) how many detainees were in that compound on that day
(c) under what circumstances would there be no officers present in a compound at any given time
(d) what is the process of debriefing Serco officers or providing them with counselling after self-harm or other disturbing incidents
(e) is it true that Serco officers are not being debriefed or provided with counselling after self-harm or other disturbing incidents
(f) is Serco required to meet mandated occupational health and safety standards under the department's contract
(g) is the department satisfied that these mandated standards are being met by Serco; if so, how is it satisfied
(h) have there been any instances where the department has not received security incident reports from Serco; if so, on how many occasions and what were the reasons
(i) can the department guarantee that all security incident reports completed by Serco officers are being provided to the department; if they are not required, why not.
The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions:
(1) (a) Yes.
(b) Yes. The Secretary has established the Departmental Audit Committee (DAC) in compliance with Section 46 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (the FMA Act).
(i) Geoff Knuckey – Independent Chair
Jackie Wilson – Deputy Chair and Deputy Secretary, Business Services Group
Dennis Clark – Independent Member
Gavin McCairns – Chief Risk Officer and FAS Risk, Fraud & Integrity Division
Ken Douglas – FAS Detention Infrastructure & Services Division
Mark Cully – Chief Economist
(ii) The role of the DAC is to provide independent assurance and assistance to the Secretary on the Department's audit program, risk profile, fraud control plan, control and compliance framework, and its external accountability responsibilities.
(iii) Yes, once cleared by the Chair of the DAC. Copies of the reports of the DAC can be provided to the Senator. There is no external audit committee. However the ANAO, as the department's external auditor, receive copies of the reports once cleared by the Chair of the DAC. The ANAO are also present, in an ex-officio capacity, for the whole of each meeting of the DAC.
(c) No.
(d) Each year the Department receives several thousand requests to amend personal details. Any person who considers that their personal information as held by the Department is incorrect, incomplete, misleading or out-of-date may request an amendment under either the Privacy Act 1988 or the Freedom of Information Act 1982. This could include the names of IMAs or other applicants.
(2) (a) Serco has advised that for operational and security reasons Serco does not believe that it is appropriate to make staffing numbers public as it may compromise Serco's ability to maintain the security of detention facilities and the good order within detention facilities, endangering the safety of staff and those in the Department's care.
(b) There were 380 detainees accommodated at the Northern Immigration Detention Centre as at close of business 18 October 2011.
(c) Serco advise that staffing numbers are constantly reviewed to ensure they are operationally appropriate and in accordance with the services contract. Serco further advise that it would be unusual for there to be no officers be present in a compound. This would generally only occur during a critical incident where it is no longer safe for staff to remain in the compound. In this scenario staff would be withdrawn until a risk assessment had been completed.
(d) Serco policies and procedures stipulate that debriefs occur after each critical incident. Debriefing following a critical incident is essential to address any operational and welfare issues that may have arisen through the incident. Debriefs are mandatory following critical incidents involving serious injury, death, serious trauma or serious service interruption. These may include but are not limited to:
An opportunity to address issues arising from critical incidents is provided to affected staff. Stress responses to intense situations are common and a debrief to address and deconstruct the events, followed by further support from Serco's employee assistance program (EAP), may assist in identifying and supporting those staff who require it.
(e) No refer 2 (d).
(f) The Service Provider, Serco, and all its personnel must comply with all applicable laws and Australian standards relating to occupational health and safety (including the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 and the Work Health Safety Act 2011).
(g) Serco must comply with any reasonable safety directions given by the Department and must provide a monthly report detailing any injury, illness, death or property damage while also detailing any action taken to prevent any recurrence or minimise the impact should a recurrence occur. For these reasons the Department is satisfied that the mandated occupational health and safety standards are being met by Serco.
(h) The Department is not aware of any instances where the department has not received security incident reports from Serco.
(i) The IDC Contract requires that Serco ensure that all incidents are reported and managed within the relevant timeframes. The Department monitors Serco's performance in relation to incident reporting as part of the monthly joint facility audit requirement. The Department is not aware of instances where security incident reports, completed by Serco officers, are not being provided to the department. There have, however, been instances where timeliness provisions relating to reporting of incidents were not adhered to.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 16 January 2012:
(1) What was the total funding in grants provided through Caring for our Country in the following financial years:
(a) 2008-09;
(b) 2009-10; and
(c) 2010-11.
(2) For each organisation receiving more than $1 million in those grants in any given year, and in relation to each grant received by the organisation in that year, can a list be provided detailing the:
(a) total amount;
(b) timing of payments; and
(c) purpose of the grant.
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) The total grant expenditure for Caring for our Country was:
(a) $363.67 million (GST inclusive) in 2008-09;
(b) $388.48 million (GST inclusive) in 2009-10; and
(c) $403.21 million (GST inclusive) in 2010-11.
(2) Lists are provided for the 2008-09 (Attachment A) (Available from the Senate Table Office), 2009-10 (Attachment B) (Available from the Senate Table Office), and 2010-11 (Attachment C) (Available from the Senate Table Office), financial years of organisations receiving more than $1 million (GST inclusive) with details of the relevant grants. The timing of payments is determined by the achievement of financial milestones.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 16 January 2012:
With reference to the legal advice, relating to the potential for compensation claims from any possible repeal of the carbon tax legislation, requested on 16 September 2011 and received on 21 September 2011, as referred to in the answer to question no. 66 taken on notice during the October 2011 supplementary budget estimates hearing of the Environment and Communications Committee:
(1) Who requested the advice and by what means was the request made.
(2) To which departmental officers was the advice provided.
(3) To which ministers and/or parliamentary secretaries, or their offices, was the advice provided.
(4) On what date (or dates) was the advice forwarded to any ministers and/or parliamentary secretaries or their offices.
(5) Was the advice formally noted by any ministers or parliamentary secretaries; if so, by whom and on what date (or dates).
The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
The advice was requested verbally by the Assistant Secretary, Carbon Price Legislation Branch, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The request was made to the Senior General Counsel who had been outposted to the Department by the Australian Government Solicitor to assist in the development of the Clean Energy Legislative Package.
The advice was provided to the three Assistant Secretaries in the Climate Strategy and Markets Division, the First Assistant Secretary of the Climate Strategy and Markets Division, the Chief Advisor of the Climate Strategy and Markets Division and a policy officer.
Copies of the draft and final advice were provided by the Department to the office of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency on 13 October 2011. The advice was not formally noted by any ministers or parliamentary secretaries.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 27 January 2012:
With reference to the Federal Government's proposed poker machine mandatory pre commitment trial:
(1) How was the Australian Capital Territory selected as the site of the trial.
(2) On what date were the following individuals first consulted on the possibility of the Australian Capital Territory being involved in the trial:
(a) the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory;
(b) the Member for Fraser;
(c) the Member for Canberra; and
(d) Senator Lundy.
(3) Were any state governments consulted on their possible inclusion in the trial; if so, which states and on what date.
(4) How will the compensation package be divided and assigned to clubs in the Australian Capital Territory.
(5) Can the complete details of how the pre-commitment trial will operate be provided.
The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Minister for Disability Reform has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is the only jurisdiction where the government and industry indicated that they would be prepared to consider a trial of full pre commitment.
The ACT is a microcosm of the Australian gaming industry. There are approximately 5000 gaming machines in the ACT, which is more per capita than any other state. Gaming machines in the ACT are similar to New South Wales, which has approximately half the machines in Australia.
(2) (a) Minister Macklin met with the former Chief Minister, Mr Jon Stanhope MLA, on 23 March 2011 to discuss a trial in the ACT. (b) to (d) The Minister consults regularly with her colleagues in the ACT on a range of matters.
(3) The Commonwealth Government first raised a trial with all state and territory gaming Ministers' on 25 February 2011 at a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Select Council on Gambling Reform.
At the 25 February 2011 COAG Select Council on Gambling Reform meeting, the Tasmanian Government offered to host a trial, pending industry consultation. Discussions were held and the Government was later advised that Tasmania would not be able to host a trial.
The Government has held discussions with the ACT Government since March 2011, about a trial in the ACT.
The Commonwealth Government is also consulting with the New South Wales Government about a trial in the ACT. This consultation commenced in December 2011 and relates to towns located close to the ACT. The Commonwealth Government has sought advice on the participation of venues in these locations and access to relevant data.
(4) The Commonwealth Government is offering financial assistance to clubs in the ACT to participate in a trial. This assistance recognises that they will be introducing mandatory pre commitment before venues in other states and territories. These are special arrangements for the trial only.
Testing revenue impacts is part of the trial. This assistance is to make sure that local clubs and communities are not negatively impacted from being part of the trial.
The offer includes a participation fee for venues in recognition that there may be an impact on their business, which has flow on impacts on their community contributions and taxation revenue for the ACT Government. Clubs in the ACT have been offered a participation fee equivalent to 20 per cent of their 2010-11 gross gaming revenue.
The Government has also offered assistance for staff development and training and business planning. The venue readiness and capacity package will be allocated to clubs as follows:
(5) The pre-commitment trial will commence in 2013 and be conducted over a period of 12 months.
Each stage of the trial will be conducted independently. One or more bodies will be engaged to design, manage and evaluate the trial. The design and evaluation of the trial will be subject to a peer review by academics with relevant expertise.
The methodology for evaluating the trial will include:
The trial will monitor gambling behaviour for not less than 12 months. An independent financial auditor will be appointed to ensure the integrity and transparency of any financial data. The results of the trial, and de-identified data from the trial, will be publicly available (subject to ownership of the results and data, privacy conditions and release arrangements).
The trial will be rigorously evaluated and subject to an independent review by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission will report to the Parliament in 2014 and make recommendations about whether a national roll-out of mandatory pre commitment should proceed.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 February 2012:
(1) What information does the Government have on the Uighur people recently sent to China by the Malaysian Government.
(2) Can the Minister confirm that 3 of the 20 Uighur asylum seekers who fled to Cambodia and were forcibly deported back to China in December 2009 have received lengthy prison terms.
(3) Is the Minister aware of any information concerning the other 17 asylum seekers who were forcibly deported to China in 2009.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) I have no information.
(2) No.
(3) No.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 February 2012:
With reference to the answer to question no. 1277, regarding Japanese whaling ships in the Southern Ocean:
(1) Has the Government sought more information from the Japanese Government following reports from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society that the vessel Shonan Maru 2, which is clearly marked 'Government of Japan', had armed guards on board.
(2) Has the Government formally protested to the Japanese Government over the vessel's entry into the Australian Whale Sanctuary.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) The Japanese Government has advised that the Japanese Coastguard officers on board the Shonan Maru No.2 are non-military, civilian officers. The Japanese Government has further advised that these officers have been issued with firearms and that this is standard procedure for Japanese Coastguard operations.
(2) The Australian Government strongly objects to Japanese whaling vessels passing through Australia's territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Australian Whale Sanctuary comprises the waters between three nautical miles (nm) from the coastline to the outer limit of the EEZ (200nm).
The Australian Government has made repeated representations to the Japanese Government that vessels associated with Japan's whaling program, including the Shonan Maru No.2, are not welcome in Australia's EEZ or territorial seas.
While foreign vessels have a right of innocent passage in Australia's territorial seas and freedom of navigation within Australia's EEZ under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, vessels associated with Japan's whaling program are not welcome and the Australian Government has made this clear to Japan.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 February 2012:
For the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, or if more convenient for data purposes the 2010-11 financial year, what flights were taken by departmental staff between:
(a) Townsville and Canberra; and
(b) Canberra and Townsville, including details on whether they were direct or indirect flights.
The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
No Treasury staff travelled:
(a) Townsville and Canberra; or
(b) Canberra and Townsville either on direct or indirect flights during the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs , upon notice on 15 February 2012 :
For each illegal boat arrival since 1 January 2010:
(1) At what time was the boat: (a) first spotted; and (b) intercepted.
(2) When was the Minister's office informed.
(3) At what time did the Minister issue a media release.
The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ' s question:
Please refer to the table below:
* Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel (SIEV) was detected and intercepted at the same time by a Customs and Border Protection asset.
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) incident. Customs and Border Protection assets did not intercept this vessel. The Bulk Carrier Postojna intercepted this vessel in the vicinity of Cocos Island.
^ Media release issued by Customs and Border Protection.
# SOLAS incident. Customs and Border Protection assets did not intercept this vessel. HMAS Pirie and ACV Triton responded.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 27 February 2012:
With reference to the Marine Bioregional Planning Program:
(1) On what scientific basis have the lines defining the bioregions of the South-west, North, North-west, Coral Sea and the Temperate East Marine Regions been determined.
(2) Can the scientific analysis that underpins the location of the closures be provided, including details of what specifically needs protection and what it is being protected from.
3) What peer reviewed scientific analysis has been used to ban trawling in each of the marine regions?
(4) How did the Minister formulate the policy that marine parks are the best way to conserve biodiversity?
(5) Has the Government assessed the number of boats that trawl in the highly protected (green zones), multiple-use, general purpose and special purpose zones?
(6) (a) What amount of fishing effort will have to be reduced and how many licences will have to be removed to allow the remaining boats to fish in areas that are not zoned; and (b) how were these figures determined.
(7) Has the Government estimated the cost of buying-out the licences and the boats that will be required to reduce the effort; if so, which government body will assess the compensation to fishermen.
(8) Can the Minister advise whether the Government will compensate allied seafood businesses, such as processors, wholesalers and retailers who will be severely impacted by the closures, many of which are located in regional towns that rely on industry jobs therefore forming an important part of the community.
(9) Can the Minister advise why a management plan was not prepared prior to the declaration of the bioregions.
(10) In regard to Australia's international obligations to establish marine reserves: (a) what is Australia's commitment; and (b) under which particular agreements is Australia bound.
(11) What is the total, quantifiable commitment made to international bodies and to which international bodies has Australia made a commitment.
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) The bioregions within the South-west, North, North-west, Coral Sea and Temperate East regions are based on the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA) Version 4.0.
(2) The proposed marine reserves are based on the published Goals and Principles for the establishment of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Commonwealth waters. Details about the application of the Goals and Principles are published online at:
- http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/publications/pubs/detailed-analysis.pdf
- http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/north-west/publications/pubs/northwest-detailed-analysis.pdf
- http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/north/publications/pubs/north-detailed-analysis.pdf
- http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/coralsea/publications/pubs/coralsea-detailed-analysis.pdf
- http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/temperate-east/publications/pubs/te-detailed-analysis.pdf
(3) Trawling has not been banned in the marine regions. Peer reviewed assessments addressing the compatibility of different fishing gear types for use in marine reserves, were conducted as part of the reserve design and zoning in each region.
(4) The development of Commonwealth marine reserves around Australia is being undertaken as a key part of a bipartisan commitment made in 1998 by the Australian Government to establish a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA). Guidelines for establishing the NRSMPA were developed by an inter-governmental Task Force on Marine Protected Areas and agreed to by all Australian governments in 1998. Australia's Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory governments are each working to establish representative marine protected areas in their waters.
(5) Yes.
(6) As final marine reserve boundaries and zoning are not yet determined, these figures are not available.
(7) As final marine reserve boundaries and zoning are not yet determined, the Government has not finalised the costs of fisheries adjustment assistance.
(8) The implementation of the Government's 2011 Fisheries Adjustment Policy will be considered when the final marine reserve boundaries and zoning are determined.
(9) In accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, a reserve management plan cannot be prepared until a marine reserve has been formally proclaimed.
(10) In the context of the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 Australian Governments committed to:
"to establish across the nation a comprehensive system of protected areas which includes representative samples of all major ecosystems, both terrestrial and marine; manage the overall impacts of human use on protected areas; and restore habitats and ameliorate existing impacts such that nature conservation values are maintained and enhanced".
Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Australia became a party in 1993, Australia has committed to:
"establish a system of protected areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity".
In the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation endorsed in the Declaration on Sustainable Development at the World Summit of Sustainable Development in 2002 Australia agreed to:
"Develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools, including the ecosystem approach, the elimination of destructive fishing practices, the establishment of marine protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012 and time/area closures for the protection of nursery grounds and periods, proper coastal land use and watershed planning and the integration of marine and coastal areas management into key sectors."
This commitment was reflected in a decision by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2004 to establish a Program of Work on Protected Areas which described the manner in which parties to the Convention should give effect to the obligation to establish protected areas and included the objective:
"the establishment and maintenance by 2010 for terrestrial and by 2012 for marine areas of comprehensive, effectively managed, and ecologically representative national and regional systems of protected areas that collectively, inter alia through a global network contribute to achieving the three objectives of the Convention…".
In 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a new Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 which includes the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, of which target 11 is:
"by 2020, at least… 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures…".
The Strategic Plan supersedes the 2004 Program of Work on Protected Areas but does not supersede the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.
(11) In the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development at the World Summit of Sustainable Development Australia committed to establishing representative marine protected area networks by 2012. This was a commitment made by the Howard Government and it received bipartisan support.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 2012:
(1) In regard to the sale of uranium to India:
(a) has the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) provided advice to the Government regarding uranium sales to India; if so, what advice and to whom;
(b) what is the process and timeline proposed for advancing this policy shift; and
(c) what is the role of ASNO in this process.
(2) What is the current status of Australia's involvement in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative.
(3) Which ASNO officers are involved in the GNEP initiative and what form does this involvement take.
(4) Has ASNO provided advice to assist in Australia's preparations for the upcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in Vienna; if so, to whom.
(5) Which ASNO officers will attend the upcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in Vienna.
(6) Has ASNO had input or provided advice to the Australia-Africa Mining Industry Group proposal to link AusAID funding to Australian resource projects; if so, to whom and when was the advice provided.
(7) Has ASNO reviewed the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Inquiry into Australia's relationship with the countries of Africa; if so:
(a) what is ASNO's assessment of this report; and
(b) to whom has advice been provided regarding the possible future steps to be taken.
(8) What advice or assessments have ASNO officers provided to the Government or its agencies (detailing which) regarding the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
(9) Has ASNO been involved in any assessments or responses to papers, reports or processes of the United Nations, or other international organisations, regarding the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
(10) Has there been any material change in the legal, regulatory or operational framework of the uranium sector in Australia since the Fukushima nuclear disaster. No. 76—28 February 2012 67
(11) Does ASNO consider the Government's approval of the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam as a 'clear signal' or is BHP Billiton board approval required.
(12) Can the Minister outline the expected new treaty or amended treaty process with China and the schedule of events required at the intergovernmental level to explore this further, including what model ASNO proposes to use to determine the required accounting arrangements and security measures.
(13) Which facilities in China have been approved by the Australian Government to process Australian uranium oxide.
(14) Does ASNO recognise the potential for commercial mining interests in the Olympic Dam project to influence and drive Australia's bilateral uranium sales agreements.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) ASNO has provided advice to the Prime Minister and the then Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to requirements to be included in a possible bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with India. Following the ALP's party conference decision on uranium sales to India, the Government is considering its policy and timelines on this matter. ASNO will continue to provide advice to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government in relation to requirements to be included in a possible bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with India.
(2) In 2010 the International Framework on Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC) evolved as a successor to GNEP. Australia has been attending meetings of IFNEC/GNEP on a non-active participant basis to ensure Australia's interests in nuclear non-proliferation, security and safety are taken into account.
(3) DG ASNO attended IFNEC Ministerial and preparatory meetings for Australia in May and September 2011.
(4) ASNO contributes to the preparation of advice for NPT Review Conferences and meetings of Review Conference Preparatory Committees.
(5) An ASNO official plans to join Australia's delegation to the forthcoming meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference. At this stage, that official is planned to be the Director, Comprehensive Test-Ban-Treaty and Disarmament Section.
(6) No.
(7) ASNO has not reviewed this report.
(8) The primary responsibility within the Australian Government on nuclear safety and radiation protection issues rests with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). ARPANSA has been, and continues to be, the primary source of advice to government on radiation health and safety aspects of the accident. ASNO contributed to briefing Ministers and senior officials on technical aspects of the accident within ASNO's competence. ASNO staff were on call to provide advice as required during the initial two week period of the crisis.
(9) There have been two major international meetings on the Fukushima nuclear accident: the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety (20-24 June 2011); and, the United Nations Secretary-General's High Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and Security (22 September 2011). The IAEA conference was convened by IAEA Director General Amano to draw on the lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident to strengthen nuclear safety throughout the world. The UN High Level Meeting was convened by the UN Secretary-General Ban to advance concrete actions on nuclear safety and security.
DG ASNO joined Australia's delegation to the IAEA's Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety (20-24 June 2011) and contributed to the development of the Conference's Action Plan. ASNO continues to contribute to advice to the Government in its ongoing consideration of reports, papers and processes responding to the Fukushima accident.
(10) No.
(11) This is a matter for Government consideration. ASNO prepares advice to the Government on such issues.
Before proceeding with any negotiations of a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement for the supply of Australian uranium there needs to be a clear signal from the Government of the proposed recipient country or the Australian uranium industry.
(12) Discussions on a possible agreement to amend (or supplement) Annex D of the Australia/China nuclear transfers agreement commenced in 2009 to provide that uranium extracted from copper concentrates supplied by Australia to China would be subject to the relevant provisions of the Australia/China nuclear transfers agreement. These discussions were held in Beijing in January 2009. No further discussions have been held since.
Accounting arrangements would need to be developed under the amended Australia/China agreement to provide assurances that any uranium extracted would become subject to the Agreement in the same way as uranium directly exported to China.
All of Australia's bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements require Australian uranium be protected to international standards of nuclear security, and this would likewise apply to any uranium extracted from copper concentrates.
Any amendment of the Australia/China agreement to cover extraction of uranium from ores and concentrates would be subject to review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
(13) A list of approved facilities has been previously provided in response to Question on Notice 38 (Supplementary Budget Estimates 2011–2012; 20 October 2011).
(14) Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements enable the export of Australian uranium subject to safeguards. The Government determines the countries with which it wishes to conclude bilateral safeguards agreements.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 27 February 2012:
With reference to the ‘State Party Report on the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (Australia)’:
(1) Given that the Australian Government’s report, presented to the World Heritage Committee on 1 February 2012, stated that Queensland’s State Coastal Plan ‘prevents new development footprints in coastal areas of high ecological significance’ (p. iv), can details be provided outlining exactly how the State Coastal Plan achieves this.
(2) Is the department’s definition of ‘prevent’ different from the commonly accepted understanding, that prevent means stopping something from happening.
(3) What is meant by ‘new development footprints’.
(4) In coastal areas of high ecological significance, how does the Queensland State Coastal Plan prevent:
(a) residential or tourism developments;
(b) port developments; and
(c) industrial and infrastructure developments.
(5) Is it more accurate to state that the Queensland State Coastal Plan does not prevent any development, but rather that the plan needs merely to be considered by an assessment manager (usually the local council) when applications for particular types of development are under assessment.
(6) Given that the report states that the Queensland Government’s Wetlands State Planning Policy protects high value wetlands, can details be provided outlining exactly how this policy delivers genuine protection of high value wetlands from the impacts of residential, commercial, industrial, port and infrastructure developments.
(7) Can a list be provided detailing which wetlands in Queensland are not of ‘high value’ and therefore are not afforded protection by the Wetlands State Planning Policy.
(8) Does the Wetlands State Planning Policy have to be complied with by decision-makers; do decisions have to be consistent with the policy or does the policy only have to be considered by decision-makers.
(9) Is it more accurate to state that the Queensland Wetlands State Planning Policy gives guidance on wetlands protection and only needs to be considered (but not adhered to) by decision-makers in regard to high value wetlands.
(10) In regard to the ‘Disclaimer’ at the beginning of the report, whose views and opinions are expressed in the publication if not those of the Australian Government.
(11) Who is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of a State Party Report compiled in fulfilment of Australia’s obligations to the World Heritage Committee.
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) advised that Queensland’s Sustainable Planning Act 2009 establishes a hierarchy of State and Local planning instruments. If there is an inconsistency between a lower order and a higher order plan, the higher order plan prevails.
DERM advised the Queensland Coastal Plan incorporates a State Planning Policy which is a higher order plan than a local planning instrument.
DERM advised the Queensland Coastal Plan State Planning Policy 1.9 requires that planning instruments are to allocate land for urban development outside areas of high ecological significance, or ensure urban development avoids areas of high ecological significance within urban localities after the commencement of the State Planning Policy. Aside from policy 1.9, under the Queensland Coastal Plan policy 3.1, development is to be located outside, and not impact on, areas of high ecological significance unless the development is of a certain type as listed. For listed exceptions such as urban development within an existing urban area, development within an aquaculture or maritime development area; or development associated with a port or airport, development can have an impact on areas of high ecological significance on an ‘avoid, minimise, and offset residual impacts’ basis
(refer to policy 3.2).
(2) No.
(3) The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management advised that new development footprints refer to new urban footprint areas that have not previously been included within an urban footprint under a Regional Plan prepared under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, or where a Regional Plan has not yet been prepared under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.
(4) See response to question 1 above.
The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management advised that industrial areas, except for State Development Areas, occur within urban localities and so are captured under the definition of ‘urban development’ above. State Development Areas are established, planned and developed under separate legislation.
(5) No, refer to answer to Question 4, above.
(6) The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) advised that the Wetlands State Planning Policy applies to wetlands of high ecological significance in catchments of the Great Barrier Reef between the Mary and Daintree catchments, including the catchments draining into Tin Can Bay.
DERM advised the Great Barrier Reef Wetlands Protection State Planning Policy works in conjunction with other statutory planning and development regimes, in particular the Queensland Coastal Plan and the Vegetation Management Act 1999.
DERM advised that because other planning regimes address vegetation clearing and protection of threatened species habitat, the focus of the Great Barrier Reef Wetlands Protection State Planning Policy is to ensure high impact earthworks arising from either rural or urban development do not impact on the wetlands, as is outlined in the State Party Report on page 28.
(7) The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) advised that a list as requested is not available. There are many hundreds of thousands of wetlands in Queensland.
DERM advised their website contains a database called the ‘Map of Referrable Wetlands’ which classifies natural wetlands between wetlands of high and general ecological significance. This database supports the statutory requirement for certain types of development proposals within or within proximity of natural wetlands to be referred to DERM for assessment.
Another mapping tool accessible from DERM’s WetlandInfo webpage provides a
non-statutory interactive wetland mapping tool which identifies all wetlands in Queensland and provides information about them.
(8) The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management advised that the Wetlands State Planning Policy has the same statutory status as the Queensland Coastal Plan State Planning Policy, as outlined in the answer to Question 1, above.
(9) No.
(10) The disclaimer is of a generic format which is used on Australian Government publications. The report includes information from a range of sources including expert peer reviewed articles, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with regard to its management activities and Queensland Government agencies with regard to policies and programs that are within their jurisdiction.
(11) The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 2012:
(1) For the period 1 January to 31 December 2011, how many:
(a) uniformed staff; and
(b) civilian staff, resigned from each of the service areas (i.e. army, navy and air force).
(2) For the period 1 January to 31 December 2011, how many:
(a) uniformed staff; and
(b) civilian staff, were made redundant or accepted severance packages in each of the service areas.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
Response:
(1) For the period 1 January to 31 December 2011;
(a) The number of permanent uniformed staff that resigned from each service;
Navy: 1,250
Army: 2,929
Air Force: 975
(b) The number of permanent civilian staff that resigned from each service;
Navy: 75
Army: 113
Air Force: 60
(2) For the period 1 January to 31 December 2011;
(a) The number of permanent uniformed staff that were made redundant or accepted severance packages from each service;
Navy: 1
Army: 84
Air Force: 0
(b) The number of civilian staff that were made redundant or accepted severance packages from each service;
Navy: 6
Army: 5
Air Force: 1
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 2012:
As at 31 December 2011:
(1) With reference to the acquisition of the first 2 F 35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft:
(a) what is the expected expenditure on the acquisition; and
(b) what is to be supplied as equipment, supporting systems, weapons, services or infrastructure to the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
(2) With reference to the acquisition of a further 12 F 35 JSF aircraft:
(a) what is the expected expenditure on the acquisition; and
(b) what is to be supplied as equipment, supporting systems, weapons, services or infrastructure to the ADF.
(3) When will these first 14 F 35 JSF aircraft:
(a) be delivered;
(b) become fully operational; and
(c) what is the estimated through life support and operating costs for these aircraft over an expected 30 year period of operation.
(4) When will the remaining 86 F 35 JSF be purchased (as referenced in the Defence White Paper 2009, p. 78, paragraph 9.60, 'The Government has decided that it will acquire around 100 F 35 JSF, along with supporting systems and weapons. The first stage of this acquisition will acquire three operational squadrons comprising not fewer than 72 aircraft').
(5) With reference to the acquisition of the remaining 86 F 35 JSF aircraft:
(a) what is the expected expenditure on the acquisition;
(b) what will be supplied as equipment, supporting systems, weapons, services or infrastructure to the ADF;
(c) when will the aircraft be delivered;
(d) when will they become fully operational;
(e) where will the JSF squadrons be based, and when; and
(f) what is the estimated through life support and operating costs over an expected 30 year period of operation.
(6) What savings would be made by cancelling the purchase of 24 F 35 JSF aircraft and purchasing 24 Super Hornets.
The Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) With reference to the acquisition of the first two F-35s:
(a) Australia's first two aircraft are likely to cost about $130 million each in 2012 prices at a 1.03 United States exchange rate.
(b) The acquisition includes materiel and support to facilitate United States-based training operations, and includes, but is not limited to:
(i) base and range support;
(ii) fuel, oils and other consumables;
(ii) training expendables (weapons and countermeasures); and
(iii) student training courses.
(2) With reference to the acquisition of a further 12 F-35s:
(a) The average cost for the first 12 F-35s is expected to be about $110 million each (2012 prices at a 1.03 United States exchange).
(b) The acquisition comprises:
(i) additional pilot training in the United States;
(ii) initial spares associated with 12 aircraft;
(iii) auxiliary mission equipment (such as weapons adaptors);
(iv) training equipment and simulators to support operational testing;
(v) weapons to support commencement of operational testing;
(vi) support equipment associated with 12 aircraft;
(vii) facilities design and environmental planning activities;
(viii) initial contributions to a mission systems reprogramming facility;
(ix) information technology integration;
(x) initial contributions to shared Joint Strike Fighter Program costs;
(xi) ongoing Defence Science & Technology Organisation support activities;
(xii) operational test activities in Australia; and
(xiii) ongoing industry support initiatives.
(3) With reference to the first 14 F-35 aircraft:
(a) On current plans, Australia's first two F-35s will be delivered in the United States in 2014 for training at the international F-35 pilot training centre. In relation to the timetable for delivery of the remaining 12 F-35As, on 3 May 2012, the Minister for Defence announced a two year deferral of the acquisitions of the 12 aircraft. The new schedule reflects decisions taken by the United States Government to restructure the Joint Strike Fighter program and defer the acquisition of some aircraft. Decisions will be taken in the course of 2012 in relations to any potential capability gap and the timing of the placing of orders for additional Joint Strike Fighters.
(b) See response to 3(a)
(c) Assuming an operational life out to 2046, the estimated through life and operating cost of the first 14 F-35s (including capability upgrades but not including acquisition cost) will be approximately $9 billion (Then Year).
(4) With reference to the acquisition of additional F-35 aircraft, future numbers are subject to further Government consideration. No judgements or conclusions have been made.
(5) Government is yet to decide on the acquisition of additional F-35s.
(6) This is a hypothetical question and could not be calculated.
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 2012:
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) what savings have been made in reducing the cost of combat capability through the use of Reserves and deployable contractors; and
(b) have any one off savings been made; if so, where were these savings found.
The Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
On 5 July 2011 the honourable Senator asked a similar question, Senate Question on Notice No 784, for the period 1 January to 30 June 2011. The response to that question remains extant. In addition, for the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, there have been no 'one-off' savings in relation to the use of Reserves on operations.
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 2012:
As at 31 December 2011:
(1) From which areas of expenditure will the enhanced force protection measures be made.
(2) What specific programs will be cut or deferred to meet this cost.
(3) Why did the Government cease disclosing deferrals in expenditure in the 2008 09 Budget which has continued through to the 2011 12 Budget.
(4) (a) What are the specific deferrals in expenditure since 2008 09; and
(b) Why have these deferrals been made.
(5) What percentage increase, if any, will be made to enable future capital equipment initiatives over the forward estimates period.
(6) As it is not clear in the 2011 12 Budget, what specific projects are planned for approval in 2011 12.
(7) (a) What programs in 2011 12 will now have to be resourced through absorbed costs; and
(b) What programs have been cancelled or deferred to enable these costs to be absorbed.
(8) Of the $20.6 billion worth of savings under the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) it would appear that $4.6 billion of this involves the re allocation of funds and is not a savings item at all – how can this claim of savings be made when it is in fact a reallocation of funds.
(9) Under the SRP: (a) Why has the number of civilian employees to be cut been reduced from the forecast 3 125; and (b) What is the new figure.
The Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) The Defence funded component of the Force Protection Review, $912 million, has been funded as follows:
- reprogramming of the Defence Capability Program (DCP), reprioritisation of lower priority initiatives and reprogramming of facilities program (primarily Single Leap 2) to better align its cash provision to the revised construction timetable ($436.1 million);
- existing capability projects ($402.3 million); and
- an amount of $73.5 million reallocated within Defence by rebalancing a very small number of DCP projects.
(2) Defence has either delayed or revised the expenditure spread for a total of 11 Defence Capability Plan Projects to fund the Force Protection Review.
(3) There was no reprogramming in the 2009-10 budget.
Appropriation reprogramming was undertaken in the 2010-11 budget as shown in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2010-11 (Page 22, Table 10: Budget Measures and Other Budget Adjustments).
Capital Investment reprogramming was undertaken in the 2011-12 budget as shown in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12 (Page 28, Table 11: Defence 2011-12 Budget Measures and Other Budget Adjustments).
(4) (a) and (b). As per Annex A.
(5) The total Major Capital Investment Program is $5,128.6 million in 2011-12 and $16,015.6 million over the 12-13 to 14-15 forward estimates period (refer Table 14 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12). The amounts in each year of the Major Capital Investment Program is not managed on a percentage increase basis but rather reflects the cash flow required to support the delivery of particular projects. This may or may not be a linear relationship.
(6) Significant Defence Capability Plan (DCP) projects in development for consideration by Government were provided on pages 90 to 92, tables 44 and 45 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12. Updated projects that have been approved are provided on page 63, tables 39 and 40 of the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2011-12. The DCP and its associated regular updates are available through the Defence website (refer http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/dcp.cfm )
(7) (a) and (b) As shown on page 28, table 11 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12, the following programs have been absorbed within Defence's existing operating budgets in 2011-12:
- National Security—Baghdad embassy. Defence will absorb costs associated with the final transition to civilian security arrangements;
- Coastal surveillance; and
- RAAF base Williamtown—Improving aircraft noise management.
The total amount to be absorbed by the Department of Defence for Operations and Enhanced Force Protection Capabilities in 2011-12 is $367.9 million as shown on page 32, Table 13 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12. The absorbed funding for Enhanced Force Protection Capabilities will predominantly be funded from Defence's existing capital investment program.
(8) The Strategic Reform Program (SRP) is a comprehensive program that features many aspects of reform that are not directly focused on efficiency. The reallocation of funds in the "Other Cost Reductions" component reflects an increase in the efficiency with which Defence allocated resources. It also reflects improved Defence planning and understanding of the Defence Budget. These are all key outcomes of the Strategic Reform Program.
(9) (a) and (b) As recommended by the Defence Budget Audit (DBA), Defence undertook a detailed diagnostic to validate the DBA findings to ensure reform is sustainable and achievable. This meant that Defence's approach to specific reform initiatives diverged from the initial analysis provided in the DBA. While workforce implications have changed following the diagnostics, the overall cost reduction target of $20 billion by 2018-19 will still be achieved.
Members of Parliament and other interested parties have combined workforce reductions from efficiency savings and the 0.7 per cent productivity to give DBA workforce reduction totals of 3125 civilians and 1713 military compared to SRP reductions of 1708 civilians and 859 military.
The difference is attributed to adjustments to DMO and DSTO workforce savings, removal of operational and capability related workforce from the baseline and savings, inclusion of Efficiency and Effectiveness savings for DMO and DSTO, and inclusion of Logistics workforce savings.
Within SRP, there is growth within civilian positions under the Workforce and Shared Services Reform (WSSR) and Non Equipment Procurement Streams. The total workforce growth is 1,416 (Civilianisation 535 and Contractor Conversions 881) across the decade realizing approximately $1 billion in savings due to the reduced cost of employing civilians into these support roles.
Total APS efficiency improvements comprise APS WSSR efficiency savings of 1374 Full Time Equivalent (FTE), 5 FTE associated with Australian Defence Force (ADF) Gap Year reductions and 0.7 per cent Productivity savings of 729 FTE. The net workforce impact by 2018-19 after taking into account FTE workforce growth associated with Contractor Conversions and Civilianisation is a saving of 1573 FTE.
Further savings of up to 124 FTE associated with Logistics Stream reform are yet to be finalised.
The ADF efficiency improvements comprise 400 Average Funded Strength (AFS) Efficiency savings, civilianisation of 535 positions, 239 AFS associated with ADF Gap Year reductions and 455 AFS for 0.7 per cent Productivity savings. Further savings of up to 38 AFS associated with Logistics Stream reform are yet to be finalised.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 March 2012:
With reference to Schedule 8 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Act 2012, which amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 to improve the integrity of public ancillary funds, and given that item 8.7 of Chapter 8 of the explanatory memorandum describes the nature of a public ancillary fund as follows: 'A fund is a public ancillary fund where: it is the intention of the promoters or founders that the public will be invited to contribute to the fund; the public, or a significant part of it, does in fact contribute to the fund; and the public participates in the administration of the fund (see Bray v FC of T 78 ATC 4179 (1978) 8 ATR 569). These requirements are intended to ensure that moneys and property donated to the fund, and which attract a taxation concession, are used for the purpose for which the fund has been granted DGR [Deductible Gift Recipient] status':
(1) Should a perpetual public ancillary fund that has a substantial corpus comprised almost entirely of testamentary gifts surrender its DGR endorsement and be permitted to continue to pursue its public charitable purposes.
(2) If a public ancillary fund has received some small donations from the public in the years of its existence and has made distributions far in excess of the funds so donated, on surrendering DGR endorsement, will the fund have no additional obligations to satisfy the Government that moneys received by way of tax deductible gifts from the public have been distributed appropriately.
The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) A public ancillary fund is a trust fund eligible for deductible gift recipient (DGR) status set up for the sole purpose of regularly disbursing publicly donated funds to 'direct assistance' DGRs, for example, hospitals or homeless shelters.
A public ancillary fund must meet the following requirements:
- the purpose of providing money, property or benefits to 'direct assistance' DGRs; or
- the establishment of 'direct assistance' DGRs.
The constituent documents of a public ancillary fund must require that the capital (including testamentary gifts) and income of the fund and any moneys from the realisation of its assets, be applied exclusively for the purposes of applying money or benefits to 'direct assistance' DGRs.
A public ancillary fund is also required to have a dissolution clause which provides that on winding up of the fund, all assets remaining after the payment of debts and liabilities are transferred to another fund, authority or institution with DGR status.
The purpose of the requirement that a public ancillary fund only apply income or capital (including on winding up) to 'direct assistance' DGRs is so that money or assets of the fund from sources where tax concessions are available (such as tax deductible donations, income tax exemptions, franking credits or a CGT exemption for donated property that is a testamentary gift) cannot be applied for non-DGR purposes. To allow money or assets of the fund to be distributed to entities outside the DGR framework would allow these money or assets to be applied for purposes for which tax concessions are not intended.
The policy intent of DGR status is to encourage the provision of publicly valued goods and services with a broad public benefit that may not otherwise be provided in a functioning market. The tax concessions that are available to donors to entities with DGR status is in recognition of the valuable services these entities provide to the community.
It is thus not appropriate for a fund with DGR status to be permitted to change its status, for example, to a charitable trust that does not have advancing DGRs as its purpose. This is longstanding policy based on the need to protect the integrity of the DGR framework; prevent the purpose of the charitable fund that was gifted or left by will from being altered after the fact; and ensure the valuable tax concessions that are available to entities are used as authorised by Parliament.
For these reasons, donors and testators are made fully aware of the limitations and restrictions that apply to donations and testamentary gifts in advance of their decision to gift monies to those funds.
(2) For the reasons outlined above, it is not appropriate to allow a public ancillary fund to change its form even though it has distributed more than the amount of publicly donated funds. Furthermore, it would require a trustee of a public ancillary fund to distinguish between various sources of funds, for example, from tax-concessional and non-tax-concessional sources. To require trustees of public ancillary funds to trace funds would impose a significant compliance burden on these funds. It also may lead to current trustees changing the fund in a manner not consistent with the intentions of the donor or deceased and thus also undermine the charitable law framework.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 2012:
In regard to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and provisions relating to the superannuation industry:
(1) What is the status of the requirement for superannuation funds to take less than 30 days to roll money over to a different fund or to a member following the member's request.
(2) What is the extent of non-compliance, listed by industry segment, in regard to this provision.
(3) What rollover release times appear to be:
(a) best practice; and
(b) less than best practice.
(4) Does the industry fund sector generally take significantly longer than the retail fund sector in arranging and administering rollovers; if so:
(a) can APRA provide the relevant data relating to this trend; and
(b) what are the reasons for this difference according to APRA.
The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) In normal circumstances a trustee must rollover or transfer an amount requested by a member in accordance with the request within 30 days of the trustee receiving the required information to process the request. There are some exceptions to this requirement, for example, a trustee may have applied for and received from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) portability relief for a set period of time due to fund specific circumstances or the member may have consented to a longer redemption period at the time of choosing an illiquid investment option.
(2) APRA does not routinely collect data which would allow the collation of all cases of non-compliance as only 'significant' breaches of licence conditions are required to be reported to APRA. Often it is a major event (e.g. an underlying investment scheme is frozen) which may prevent a trustee from processing rollovers that is reported to APRA supervisors. Anecdotally there is limited evidence of non-compliance across the industry. Sometimes delays are due to members not initially providing all the necessary information that will enable a trustee to process the request.
(3) (a) Typically trustees will have service standards built into administration arrangements which are much lower than the legislative requirement.
These will vary from fund to fund, but may be as low as five to ten working days for a rollover to another APRA fund and slightly longer to a self managed superannuation fund where there are additional processing steps.
(b) The time taken to process rollover requests can vary for many reasons. APRA's focus is on the trustee's process, including monitoring compliance with firstly service standards, and secondly the legislative requirement and APRA has not formed a view as to “best practice'.
(4) (a) As noted above APRA does not collect data on the timing of rollovers. (b) N/A.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, upon notice, on 13 March 2012:
Can a breakdown be provided detailing all expenditure on or at the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre.
The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
A response detailing all expenditure at Pontville Immigration Detention Centre was provided for the Additional Estimates 2011-2012 Senate Committee hearing. Please refer to AE12/0354 for further details.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice , on 13 March 2012:
With reference to the National Indigenous Reform Agreement on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council website:
(1) Given that the seven National Partnerships associated with the National Indigenous Reform Agreement are: the National Partnership on Indigenous Economic Participation; the National Partnership on Remote Indigenous Public Internet Access; the National Partnership on Remote Service Delivery; the National Partnership on Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory; the National Partnership on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes; the National Partnership on Remote Indigenous Housing; and the National Partnership on Indigenous Early Childhood Development, can details be provided of the:
(a) total funds committed to date for each National Partnership; and
(b) total funds expended for each National Partnership , including a breakdown by state and territory where applicable.
(2) Given that the six targets of the National Indigenous Reform Agreement are to: 'close the life expectancy gap within a generation'; 'halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five within a decade'; 'ensure all Indigenous four year olds in remote communities have access to early childhood education within five years'; 'halve the gap for Indigenous students in reading, writing, numeracy within a decade'; 'halve the gap for Indigenous students in Year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment rates by 2020'; and 'halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade', which National Partnerships relate to the following targets:
(a) 'halve the gap for Indigenous students in reading, writing, numeracy within a decade'; and
(b) 'halve the gap for Indigenous students in Year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment rates by 2020'.
The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ' s question:
(1) (a) and (b) Funds committed is understood to refer to funds committed by the Commonwealth and equates to how much is in the National Partnership agreement. Funds expended is how much money the Commonwealth has paid to the States.
This information is publicly available. Information on funding in National Partnerships is available on the federal financial relations website at: www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/national_partnership_agreements/default.aspx
While information on how much money the Commonwealth has paid the States is reported in the Final Budget Outcome at:
http://budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/fbo/html/index.htm
Please note, the following National Partnership agreements are not payments to the States but Commonwealth Own Purpose Expenditure:
(2) (a) and (b) The COAG Reform Council, in its assessment of the targets 'halve the gap for Indigenous students in reading, writing, numeracy within a decade' and 'halve the gap for Indigenous students in Year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment', specifically draws on the National Education Agreement and the National Partnership on Literacy and Numeracy.
The broader Closing the Gap Framework recognises that outcomes in other areas, such as health, housing and early childhood, are also likely to contribute to improving outcomes in areas such as reading, writing, numeracy and Year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
With reference to question No 55 taken on notice during the 2011-12, Supplementary Budget estimates hearing of the Environment and Communications Legislative Committee:
(1) Why are Licensed Post Offices still experiencing lengthy delays in the supply of stock.
(2) Why is Australia Post unable to provide delivery invoices with stock.
(3) Is Australia Post up-to-date with the processing of credits owed to licensees.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) On-time fulfilment of Licensed Post Office orders has been a key focus for the warehouse over the last three months and the delays have been reduced. Work is ongoing to further improve performance, with additional improvements expected through the redesign of the Altona warehouse, which is scheduled to be completed in April 2012.
(2) Australia Post acknowledges that this is an issue for Licensees. The issue was caused by the consolidation of warehouses to Altona. Action is well advanced to ensure that delivery invoices will again be included with stock over the coming weeks. In addition, an option to receive dispatch advice electronically will be made available to Licensees in the near future.
(3) The processing of credits owed to Licensees has improved significantly with extra resources being allocated to clear the backlog. Most outstanding credits prior to March have now been cleared. The processing of credits continues to be given priority and is expected to be up to date by the end of April 2012.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
With reference to Australia Post and the carriage of parcels by street mail contractors:
(1) Given that Australia Post claims that, due to declining letter volumes, street mail contractors have the capacity to deliver small parcels, how can Australia Post expect a street mail contractor, who tendered for the mail contract on the basis that he or she would be delivering letters, to be expected to carry parcels.
(2) Does Australia Post compensate parcel contractors for income lost because of parcels being allocated to street mail contractors.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) Street mail contractors have delivered small packets/parcels for many years and the time to sort and deliver these items is included in the tender process. It is considered that any increase in the volume of small parcels reduces the impact of declining letters volumes. Contractors are advised in information booklets of the requirement to deliver small packets and may reasonably request a review of the contract where mail volume and subsequently the time taken for delivery substantially varies from the terms of the contract.
(2) The estimated volume of parcels for delivery by a particular contractor forms the basis of the contract price incorporating labour, vehicle and associated operating costs. While Australia Post does not guarantee volumes within the contract, where a material variation occurs from the Services and/or the Performance Requirements, the Contract Fee may be adjusted by both parties negotiating in good faith.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 Mach 2012:
With reference to the partnership between Rural Bank and Australia Post announced in 2011:
(1) How is the business partnership progressing,
(2) What are the benefits to (a) Licensed Post Office (LPO) operators; and (b) Rural Bank customers.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) In cooperation with Rural Bank, Australia Post launched 39 pilot stores in November 2011
and will have 700 postal outlets offering Rural Bank services by the end of 2012. Work is underway to expand the range of products available as Australia Post extends the number of participating outlets.
(2) (a) LPOs play a critical role in strengthening banking in rural areas as they make up a large part of the network that will support Rural Bank. These additional banking services will provide licensees with new streams of revenue thereby assisting them to run sustainable businesses.
(b) Eventually Rural Bank customers will be able to perform specific new account opening functions at up to 1400 postal outlets (700 by end of 2012) and be able to meet their daily transactional banking needs at up to 3200 postal outlets.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
With reference to Australia Post and cheque payment fees:
(1) What is the current cost of processing a cheque.
(2) Why has Australia Post failed to advise all non-for-profit bodies that they are eligible for a waiver of the $100 cheque payment fee.
(3) Have not-for-profit bodies been charged the $100 fee on their most recent Australia Post account without indication that they are eligible for the fee to be waived.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) In an article in the Financial Review on 9 August 2011 headed "Cheque users could pay more: RBA" (copy attached), the Reserve Bank of Australia indicated that in 2007 the Central Bank found the average cost of processing cheques to be approximately $7.69 per cheque. The Reserve Bank of Australia also suggested that businesses pass on more of the costs to users to ensure the payment method remains sustainable.
(2) In January 2012, Australia Post wrote to all identified not-for-profit bodies in its database advising of its decision to waive the $100 annual cheque payment fee until 1 July 2012 to allow them more time to change to one of the no-fee payment options such as Electronic Funds Transfer or Direct Debit.
Where a customer subsequently contacted Australia Post to query why the $100 fee had been included on their latest invoice and Australia Post was able to confirm the customer is in fact a not-for-profit body that had been incorrectly categorised in its database, Australia Post immediately reversed the $100 fee.
(3) As per answer to part (2).
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
With reference to Australia Post and the delivery of parcels:
(1) Given that, in the 2010-11 annual report, Australia Post reported a 5.3 per cent increase in revenue through the parcel delivery business, has there been any corresponding growth in the number of parcel contractors delivering for Australia Post.
(2) How does Australia Post determine when a delivery area will receive a dedicated parcel delivery service, where previously there may have been only a general street mail delivery service.
(3) How is Australia Post progressing in the delivery of overweight or oversized parcels, with particular regard to how these parcels are being handled in a manner that minimises the handling risks to licensees and contractors.
(4) Why does Australia Post accept large items, such as clothes dryers, washing machines or fridges, for delivery through the postal delivery network.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) There has not been a corresponding growth in the number of parcel contractor numbers in line with growth in parcel volume. However, the contractor terms enable contract principals to expand or maintain their delivery resources depending on the capacity of the particular contractor to accommodate volume growth.
(2) The decision to provide a dedicated parcel delivery service is based on a number of factors including the capacity of the street mail delivery service to provide the service, the volume of parcels received and the cost of providing a dedicated 'to the door' parcel delivery service that is in line with commercial practice.
(3) A pilot of a delivery capability to manage larger parcels “XL parcels” commenced in the Sydney metropolitan areas in late 2011. In February 2012, it was agreed to extend the Sydney “XL parcels” pilot to other capital cities and nominated Regional destinations. A key feature of the service is to call the receiving customer to arrange delivery in order to maximise delivery first time, thereby reducing carding of these articles and minimising handling requirements for licensees and contractors.
(4) Australia Post has guidelines as to the size and weight of parcels that will be accepted for delivery through its normal parcel delivery network. Contract parcel customers may seek approval to lodge parcels up to 22 kg (maximum single dimension 105cm with a maximum volume of 0.25 cubic metres). By exception and through an approval process, contract parcel customers may lodge parcels up to 32 kg (maximum single dimension 115cm with a maximum volume of 0.25 cubic metres). These parameters are set to ensure the Health and Safety of staff and contractors. Any lodgements accepted that fall outside of these parameters are investigated.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
With reference erence to Messenger Post Couriers:
(1) What provision is there in the standard Messenger Post contract for variations due to increased fuel prices.
(2) How does Australia Post determine the labour rate paid to Messenger Post contractors.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) The standard Messenger Post Couriers contract does not provide for a variation in the contract fee due to changes in fuel prices. The contract fee may be increased at Australia Post's discretion in response to a contractor's request, e.g. in response to changes in operating costs.
(2) Messenger Post contractors are paid consistent with market rates. They are not paid a labour fee. Contractors are paid a fee to provide services that involve the transport of articles across metropolitan regions. The fee paid to contractors is an agreed fee to cover all costs associated with the transport of such articles. This typically includes all such expenses a small business may incur, including: fuel, maintenance, labour, insurances, etc.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
Can details be provided relating to how Australia Post recruits its Product Managers, including:
(a) whether positions are advertised;
(b) whether appointments are handled by an external recruitment agency; and
(c) how position descriptions are developed.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(a) All positions are advertised. Where internal candidates do not have the skills, knowledge or experience to perform the duties of the position, the position may be advertised externally.
(b) Australia Post may recruit directly or use an external panel recruitment agency to source candidates. The responsible manager would decide which candidate was the best and, together with their HR Business Partner and Recruitment team, organise the appointment.
(c) Position descriptions are developed by the relevant manager with assistance from their HR Business Partner.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
With reference to Australia Post and the engagement of external consultants:
(1) How much did Australia Post spend on consultants in the 2010-11 financial year, broken down by consulting firm.
(2) Why does Australia Post engage external consulting firms.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) Australia Post spent $24.3m on major management consultants (i.e. those costing $250,000 or more) in 2010/11, which was significantly down on the spend in 2009/10. Continuing this trend, year-to-date spend on major management consultants in 2011/12 is also significantly down on 2009/10 and 2010/11 levels. Specific details about individual consulting firms are commercial-in-confidence.
(2) Australia Post has been focussing on reducing the need for external consultants as it continues to build the capability and expertise of its people. While Australia Post prefers to rely on internal capability, external consultants may need to be engaged due to the specific skill set required.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
With reference to the engagement of legal services by Australia Post:
(1) How much did Australia Post spend on legal services from external law firms in the 2010/11 financial year, broken down by firm.
(2) Has Australia Post reduced staff numbers in its internal legal divisions; if so, can details be provided as to which staff members were cut, such as whether they were administrative staff or solicitors.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) Around $5,428,862 in 2010/11. Details about individual services and costs are commercial-in-confidence.
(2) During 2010/11, the internal legal services group was restructured and incorporated into the Governance and Assurance Unit. There was no net reduction in the number of solicitors or administrative staff.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
Has Australia Post reduced its corporate security personnel numbers; if so, why.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
Staff numbers in Australia Post's Corporate Security Group (CSG) have reduced from 62 to 55 over the last 18 months due to several voluntary redundancies and several internal relocations. CSG continues to maintain offices in all mainland State capitals and the ACT. Security services to the business and customers have been enhanced over the past 18 months through process efficiencies and the introduction of new technology.
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
(1) Given that Messenger Post has previously advised its customers that it will raise rates due to fuel costs, has any such increase ever been passed on to Messenger Post's contractors in the form of an increase in their contract fee.
(2) What is the standard length of contract offered to Messenger Post contractors.
(3) Has the Western Australia division of Messenger Post been without a Regional Manager for the past 12 months; if so: (a) has anyone been appointed to this position on a temporary basis; and (b) why has this position been vacant for so long.
(4) What scope does a new contractor have to negotiate the terms of their contract when in preliminary discussions with Messenger Post.
(5) How does Messenger Post allocate 'ad hoc' work to its contractors.
(6) What undertakings does Messenger Post give to incoming contractors based on anticipated workloads, and are any written estimates of work given to contractors.
(7) Has Messenger Post received any complaints from its contractors that the amount of available work has been misrepresented.
(8) What provision is there in a standard Messenger Post contract to allow for increases in operating costs (other than fuel costs).
(9) What is the cause of the recently high turnover of contractors observed in the Western Australia division of Messenger Post.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) Messenger Post Couriers reviews customer rates periodically in line with movements in Transport CPI. Independently of customer rate reviews, Messenger Post Couriers reviews rates to contractors periodically, which may result in a rate increase. The most recent increase was initiated in July 2011.
(2) Messenger Post's standard contracts are two years in length with a one-year option.
(3) Messenger Post Couriers Western Australia has had an Acting State Manager for the last 12 months. Following a review of Messenger Post's management structure, a permanent Regional Manager for WA, SA, Victoria and Tasmania was appointed on February 16, 2012.
(4) Messenger Post Couriers negotiates with prospective contractors using commonly accepted benchmarks for operating a courier based business. Negotiated rates may vary as they are dependent upon factors such as vehicle type and size (gross tonnage), specialist capabilities such as tail-lift, taut liner, etc., demand and supply, time of day and day of week for services, as well as distance from metropolitan areas.
There is limited scope around the terms and conditions (e.g. insurances, liabilities, privacy and confidentiality etc.), but there is scope around the nature of work and its pricing.
(5) Ad hoc work is allocated to contractors according to their ability to meet customer requested time frames for delivery of work. The ad hoc courier industry is very competitive and ad hoc work is based on the premise of tight schedules for both pick-up and delivery. A contractor's physical location, direction of travel and current workload (i.e. future pickups and work currently already on-board and its destination) influence the despatching decisions for ad hoc work.
(6) Messenger Post Couriers provides no undertakings to prospective contractors with regard to anticipated earnings. Messenger Post Couriers' policy is to provide indicative information only on potential income. This is derived from case studies of current contractors and it varies from case to case.
(7) Messenger Post Couriers routinely fields inquiries from contractors about work volumes, payment levels and other matters. The standard procedure is to review contractor representations at the Operations Manager level, and to assess options for resolution. Contractor payment levels are monitored by Operations Managers.
(8) Messenger Post Couriers standard contract allows for contractors to make applications to Messenger Post for an increase in the contract fee in the case of material variations to the Services and/or the Service Level Agreement and the fee may be increased in response to changes in operating costs. In addition, Messenger Post Couriers reviews rates to contractors periodically, which may result in a rate increase. The most recent rate increase was initiated in July 2011.
(9) Recent results for the 2011/12 quarter ending March 2012 show that Messenger Post Couriers, Western Australia experienced a contractor turnover rate of 3.6% over the period, which is consistent with previous periods.
The long-term average of 1.2% per month equates to a yearly turnover rate of approximately 15%. This compares very favourably with other courier businesses with an industry norm several times higher not uncommon.
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 March 2012:
Will the 5 000 United States of America military personnel to be rotated through the bases in northern Australia be subject to Australian laws; if not, from which laws will the personnel be exempted.
The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
Criminal jurisdiction over US military forces while in Australia is governed by the 1963 Agreement concerning the Status of United States Forces in Australia (SOFA) and the Defence (Visiting Forces) Act 1963 (DVFA). The DVFA is administered by the Attorney-General's Department.
Under the SOFA, US troops stationed in Australia are subject to both Australian law and United States law. Where US personnel undertake conduct that amounts to an offence only under Australian law, Australia will have an exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction in relation to that conduct. In the event that US personnel are alleged to have committed an offence under the laws of both countries, Australia will have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over the conduct, unless the alleged conduct:
In these exceptional cases, the US will have primary right to exercise jurisdiction. If the US waives its right to exercise jurisdiction Australia may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged offence.
The DVFA implements the criminal jurisdiction obligations in the SOFA into Australian law. In particular, it provides that in circumstances where charges are laid by Australian authorities, it is for Australian courts to determine whether the alleged offence occurred in the course of 'official duties' (and as such whether the US has primary right to exercise jurisdiction in respect of an offence under US law). The DVFA provides that the Attorney-General can issue a certificate stating that the conduct was in the course of official duties. This certificate is sufficient evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved (subsection 18(4)).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
With reference to a media release available on the department's website, dated 10 December 2010, which states 'To date, Australia has allocated A$473 million of its A$599 million fast-start commitment, including new funding allocations announced in Cancun. These include:
(1) For each of the five funds or programs listed above, as well as any more recent climate finance related funds or programs, can a breakdown be provided detailing:
(a) the total expenditure, both to date and projected, by financial year; and
(b) what these funds have been or will be spent on.
(2) What evidence is there that this expenditure has not and will not displace overseas development assistance funding.
The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
Australia provides regular progress reports regarding the delivery of its fast-start finance commitment, with the most recent progress report being provided in December 2011 at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Durban, South Africa. Australia's next official report is due with the secretariat to the UNFCCC in May 2012. Australia's reports are made available to the public on the Department's website.
In the December 2011 report, the latest data regarding the allocation and disbursement is outlined. The reporting also includes a range of case studies, which provide greater detail of on-the-ground fast-start activities.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 14 March 2012:
Given that the Government's 'Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership' fact sheet states 'Initial work will aim to avoid deforestation of 50,000 hectares of peat swamp forest and rehabilitate an additional 50,000 hectares of degraded peatland to create a buffer around the existing forest and reduce further degradation. These activities may be extended as other funding becomes available. The location and types of activities under the KFCP have been endorsed by Indonesia and Australia. Based on the original funding target of $100 million, the KFCP aims to preserve up to 70,000 hectares of Kalimantan's peat swamp forests and to re-flood, rehabilitate and reforest 200,000 hectares of degraded peatland':
(1) When was the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) agreed to.
(2) How much money has been spent on the KFCP, and how much does the Government still expect to spend, listed per year over the forward estimates.
(3) How many hectares of deforestation have been: (a) avoided; and (b) rehabilitated.
(4) Does the Government still aim to achieve the goals described in the KFCP factsheet.
(5) Can an update be provided outlining the progress with the Sumatra Forest Carbon Partnership (SFCP) announced in March 2010.
(6) How much money has been spent on the SFCP, and how much does the Government still expect to spend, listed per year over the forward estimates.
The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) The declaration of intent to establish the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) was signed on 9 September 2007 by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Alexander Downer and his Indonesian counterpart, Dr Hassan Wirajuda, in the presence of Indonesia's President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
(2) Actual and planned expenditure for the KFCP to the end of financial year 2012-13 is set out below. Expenditure beyond this period is currently being considered by the two governments.
(3) The primary intent of the KFCP is to demonstrate new techniques to drive REDD+ action – the KFCP is not purely an avoided deforestation project. Demonstration activities, all under Village Agreements, to reforest the degraded section of the site are underway. By April 2012, local communities (as a part of the rehabilitation process) will have replanted about 1,050 hectares and produced over 1.4 million seedlings. Some pilot activities to rewet the peat, which will rehabilitate degraded peatland and prevent further deforestation, have also commenced, also under Village Agreements.
(4) The latest factsheet on the KFCP is from April 2011. The Government remains committed to the objectives laid out in the factsheet of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and demonstrating an equitable and effective approach to REDD+ by developing:
(5) The Sumatra Forest Carbon Partnership is currently under active negotiation and design by the governments of Australia and Indonesia. Decisions on possible expenditure under the SFCP will be determined in coming months in consultation with the Indonesian Government.
(6) Same as (5) above.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 13 March 2012:
(1) Can details be provided of the budget allocations to the National Reserve System (NRS) for the financial years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, and any forward estimates commitments for the coming financial years.
(2) In the design of the operational detail of the Biodiversity Fund, how was the strategic program for the NRS factored in, for example, will priority be given to Biodiversity Fund project proposals that help create habitat corridors or buffer existing or proposed National Reserves.
(3) When are Natural Resource Management regions expected to have completed revisions to their regional strategic plans to reflect potential landscape carbon projects.
(4) How will the revised plans inform the first two rounds of funding under the Biodiversity Fund.
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) Commonwealth Expenditure on the National Reserve System (NRS) in 2009-10 was $38.9 million and $45.4 million in 2010-11. National budget allocations have been set for the NRS through to the end of the current phase of Caring for our Country and will provide $32.8 million in 2011-12. Future funding will be finalised as part of the Budget. Additional funding is provided for Indigenous Protected Areas that also contribute to the NRS.
(2) The Biodiversity Fund complements the NRS by prioritising, among other things, projects to enhance the condition of native vegetation in areas adjacent to existing key assets such as protected areas in the NRS.
(3) The Regional Natural Resource Management Planning for Climate Change Fund (part of the Clean Energy Future Land Sector Package) is expected to commence in early 2012-13. The 56 regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) organisations across Australia will receive funding to update their plans to incorporate climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies on the land. Those updated plans will inform the design and location of carbon sequestration and biodiversity activities in the future. The program commences in 2012-13 and completion times for plans will vary depending on the stage of development of the current NRM plans.
(4) The first round of the Biodiversity Fund had regard to the alignment of proposed projects with existing planning tools, including NRM plans. The future rounds will have increasing regard to NRM plans as those plans are updated.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Australia, upon notice, on 16 March 2012:
(1) Has the Department or Ministers Office been approached by, or provided funding and other support to, any of the following organisations since March 2011:
If so, for each organisation:
(a) can details be provided of the nature of the contact or funding and support; and
(b) did the contact or funding and support relate to proposals to develop a port at Point Torment, Western Australia.
(2) Has the department been approached by any organisation (other than those listed above) in regard to a proposal to develop a port at Point Torment since March 2011.
The Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) (a) The Minister's Office and the Department have not had any contact with Azure Funds Management Pty Ltd, Point Torment Supply Base Pty Ltd, Indigenous Investment Management Pty Ltd, KRED Enterprises Pty Ltd or Kimberley Regional Economic Development Corporation Pty Ltd.
Azure Capital wrote to Minister Crean on 6 May 2011, providing support for a proposal to develop the Foundry Digital Media Hub in Midland, WA that had been submitted to the Regional Development Australia Fund. The Minister did not respond to this correspondence. The Department has not had any contact with Azure Capital.
The Department regularly interacts with the WA Government on a range of issues linked to portfolio responsibilities, for example, regional development, local government, arts, sport and Indian Ocean Territories, and specifically on the East Kimberley Development Package and Northern Australia Ministerial Forum.
(1) (b) No
(2) No
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 16 March 2012:
(1) Has the department or Minister's office been approached by, or provided funding and other support to, any of the following organisations since March 2011:
if so, for each organisation:
(a) can details be provided of the nature of the contact or funding and support; and
(b) did the contact or funding and support relate to proposals to develop a port at Point Torment, Western Australia.
(2) Has the department been approached by any organisation (other than those listed above) in regard to a proposal to develop a port at Point Torment since March 2011.
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) The department has no record of having been approached by:
Azure Funds Management Pty Ltd;
Azure Capital Pty Ltd;
Point Torment Supply Base Pty Ltd;
Indigenous Investment Management Pty Ltd;
KRED Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 147677156);
Kimberley Regional Economic Development Corporation Pty Ltd (ACN 147677147);
The department has been approached by and provided support to the Western Australian Government in relation to:
Support to Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation to trial the Australian National Aquatic Ecosystem Classification Scheme in the mid-west of Western Australia, between Perth and Geraldton;
Southern Seawater Desalination Plant project – grant milestone payments;
Urban Waterways Renewal (WA), $4 million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—2007 election commitment;
Geraldton-Greenough Stormwater harvesting and Efficiency, $3 million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—2007 election commitment;
Subiaco In-Plant Water Treatment, $2.455 million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—2007 election commitment;
Kalbarri Water Recycling, $1.950 million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—2007 election commitment;
COAG Strategy on Water and Wastewater Service in Remote (including Indigenous) Communities (WA) , $11 million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—funded under COAG Strategy on Water and Wastewater Services in Remote (including Indigenous) Communities;
East Pilbara Water Efficiency, WA, $1.550million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—Competitive grant;
Kimberley Integrated Water Efficiency, $1.850 million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—Competitive grant;
Great Southern—Albany and Denmark, $4.050 million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—Competitive grant;
West Pilbara Integrated Water Efficiency, $4.050 million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—Competitive grant;
Goldfields Kalgoorlie – Boulder, $2.150 million, National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns—Competitive grant.
The department has been approached by and provided support to the Western Australian Government in the form of the following grants made under the Caring for our Country program:
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: The eradication of exotic rodents from several WA islands$890,000;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Reducing impacts of rabbits to regenerate threatened flora, communities and critical habitat$993,000;
Western Australian Planning Commission – Project: Coastwest / Coastcare: Engaging WA Communities in Caring for the Coast$1.5 million;
Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation – Project: Protection of Eighty Mile Beach through remediation and awareness raising$80,000;
Western Australia Department of Water – Project: Implementing the Peel-Harvey WQIP: Filtering the nutrient storm$1.5 million;
Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation – Project: Protecting refugial Western Australian EPBC listed Threatened species$125,000;
Swan River Trust – Project: Reducing excess levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Swan Canning River Systems$2.5 million;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Shark Bay World Heritage AreaAerial control of Feral Animals$286,000;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Shark Bay World Heritage AreaMonitoring of threatened spBernier & Dorre Island$247,407;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Shark Bay World Heritage AreaExecutive and project support$281,700;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Shark Bay World Heritage AreaImplementation of the communication strategy$429,000;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Shark Bay World Heritage AreaConduct of the World Heritage advisory committee$100,900;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Protecting and presenting the values of the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Area$455,000;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Integrated feral animal control at the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Area$496,000;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Engaging with the community and scientific experts, Purnululu World Heritage Area$280,000;
Western Australia Department Environment and Conservation – Project: Protecting Purnululu's World Heritage Values by reducing the impact of hot, late season fire$120,000;
(2) The department has no record of having been approached by any organisation (other than those listed above) in regard to a proposal to develop a port at Point Torment since March 2011.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, upon notice, on 20 March 2012:
With reference to the wrecking of the MV Tycoon at Christmas Island:
(1) Can the Minister confirm that up to 70 per cent of the ship has been washed away; if so:
(a) what percentage is estimated to have been washed away; and
(b) where are the pieces of wreck located.
(2) Given that reports by Christmas Island residents and the media state that oil has continued to leak from the vessel, contradicting evidence provided by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) at estimates, on what basis did AMSA make the assessment that all the oil had already leaked from the vessel.
(3) Why did AMSA fail to make use of calm weather between 7 February and 29 February 2012, to further assess the vessel or pump out the remaining oil.
(4) Is the Minister aware that local residents are still being affected by fumes produced by the leaking oil; if so, what action is the Government taking to address these concerns.
(5) Are clean-up actions still being undertaken on the island; if so, can details be provided of these actions and the timeline to completion.
(6) In regard to the clean-up process:
(a) where was the contaminated sand and rock disposed of following the clean-up;
(b) how much material was disposed of;
(c) was Isabel Beach cleaned; if so, in what manner; and
(d) how much has AMSA spent on the clean-up.
(7) Can the Minister confirm whether phosphate bags are still covering the reef around the wreck site; if so:
(a) why have the bags not been removed; and
(b) is their impact being monitored.
(8) Has the issue of responsibility for the wreck been resolved; if so, who is responsible; if not, why not.
(9) When will the remaining wreck be removed.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) It is not possible to estimate the percentage of the wreck that has been washed away as the wreck has deteriorated under heavy swell conditions.
The Christmas Island Harbour Master is surveying the wreck site to ascertain the location of the pieces. This is being completed as weather permits.
(2) The evidence supplied by AMSA at Senate Estimates was accurate and clearly stated "there might be some leakage of residual oil". The assessment of how much oil had leaked from the ship was made on visual observations over a period of weeks based on the position and condition of the wreck and the associated shoreline pollution.
(3) There were adverse swell conditions throughout that period and it was not possible to pump out the residual oil. The pollution response team inspected the vessel daily throughout this period and swell conditions prevented any remedial action being undertaken.
(4) In the recent adverse weather, the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport (Regional Australia) on the island had reports of diesel fumes affecting some residents in the area neighbouring Flying Fish Cove. Residents were advised to avoid the area and to seek medical assistance if required. The fumes dissipated within a few hours.
(5) No oil pollution clean-up is occurring at present.
As indicated in the answer to question (8), the operation for removal of the wreck by the contracted salvage operator has commenced.
In addition, the Harbour Master has put in place arrangements to remove debris from the shore for port safety purposes, weather permitting.
Non-oiled rubbish that has been deposited on Flying Fish Cove beaches by the swell will be cleaned up soon, as the swell season comes to an end. I am advised that such rubbish clean-up occurs every year after swell season conditions abate.
(6) No oil contaminated sand and rock was removed from the beach. Oiled debris was removed to a dedicated waste site in the landfill area, under Shire direction, and placed in shipping containers, ready for off-island disposal.
Currently there are four shipping containers of oiled debris stored at the landfill area, under Shire control, awaiting the opportunity to ship to a secure and authorised disposal site on mainland Australia.
Isabel Beach was assessed regularly for oiling until early March, and for debris since then. No oil has been found. All debris and rubbish found has been removed and the Shire will continue to do this should more rubbish be deposited. This is normal practice after swell season conditions.
To date AMSA has spent $295,000 on the clean-up.
(7) Soon after the vessel was wrecked there were reports of phosphate bags covering corals. Reports from recreational divers in the area are that these have dissipated in the recent heavy seas.
The impact of the phosphate bags on the corals is part of the long-term environmental monitoring program undertaken by the Western Australian Department of Fisheries on behalf of the Australian Government.
(8) Removal of the wreck is normally the responsibility of the owner. However, as the owner has not taken any practical action to commence a salvage or wreck removal operation, the Australian Government has stepped in to arrange the operation. The Australian Government will take action to recover costs from the owner.
The salvage operation will be undertaken by Titan Maritime Pty Ltd (Titan) and managed through a cooperative agreement between AMSA and Regional Australia.
Divers from Titan commenced surveying the site on 24 April 2012, to develop a salvage plan.
Once the salvage operation is completed the Government will take action to recover costs from the vessel's owner.
(9) The wreck removal operation has had to await calmer weather conditions which follow the ending of the swell season in late April.
A wreck removal contract has been signed with Titan, and, as indicated in the answer to question (8), a dive survey commenced on 24 April 2012. Titan has advised that they expect to provide a proposal for wreck removal approximately one week later.
The wreck removal process is weather-dependent and is expected to take several months.
Arrangements will be made to minimise disruption to port operations and any adverse impacts on the Christmas Island community from the wreck removal operation.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, upon notice, on 22 March 2012:
With reference to the wrecking of the MV Tycoon at Christmas Island, can the Minister confirm whether phosphate bags are still covering the reef around the wreck site; if so:
(a) why have the bags not been removed; and
(b) is their impact being monitored.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
I note that this question repeats question (7) which is contained in the honourable senator's question on notice No. 1729. Accordingly, I refer the honourable senator to the answer to question (7) in my answers to question on notice No. 1729.
asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, upon notice, on 22 March 2012:
(1) Can a list be provided of all office locations for each department or agency within the Minister's portfolio, detailing:
(a) the department or agency;
(b) the location;
(c) the size;
(d) the number of staff at each location and their classification;
(e) if the office location is rented, the amount and breakdown of rent paid per square metre;
(f) if the location is owned by the department or agency, the:
(i) value, and
(ii) depreciation, of the building; and
(g) the type of functions and work undertaken.
(2) For each department and agency within the Minister's portfolio, can details be provided of all public relations, communications and media staff, listed by department or agency, including:
(a) the number of ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location;
(b) the number of non ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location; and
(c) the number of contracted staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) (a) to (f)—
* Depreciation expenses are the responsibility of the building owner.
(g) There are a range of functions undertaken by Departmental officers relating to the work of the Department including policy development, program delivery and administrative functions. Functions for staff in IP Australia include State Outreach managers, Patents Examination, administration of Australia's intellectual property (IP) rights system, specifically trade marks, inventions (patents), designs and plant breeder's rights.
Portfolio Agencies
(1) (a) to (g)—
1 AIMS has a Research Collaborative Agreement that covers the usage of this space. AIMS covers usual outgoings at approximately $70,000 p.a.
2 This figure includes offices, laboratory and covered outdoor areas.
3 AIMS is a partner with the Australian National University and co-owns this facility (Arafura Timor Research Facility). The value at 30 June 2011 is provided by ANU.
4 The Department has provided an office to AIMS. No rent is paid.
(2) (a) (i) (ii) (iii)—
Portfolio Agencies
(2) (b) (i) (ii) (iii)—
Portfolio Agencies
(2) (c) (i) (ii) (iii)—