My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the analysis by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations overnight in relation to any economic benefit from the government’s extreme industrial relations laws that ‘this is going to take three to five or six years to have any economic effect’? Is the Prime Minister also aware that a Treasury analysis has not been able to estimate any productivity benefit and in fact suggests a negative impact on productivity in the short term? Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that these extreme changes are not about the Australian economy now or in six years time; they are simply about slashing workers’ pay and conditions today?
I think of a number of things in relation to the very interesting question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.
Think of England!
I will actually think of England. I will think of what the Prime Minister of Great Britain said: ‘Fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job.’ I will think of England, but I think more of Australia. I think more of the workers of Australia, and I care about them a lot more than those in the Australian Labor Party. That is why my proudest boast in the last election campaign, when I spoke to the men and women of Western Sydney, was that we had delivered higher wages, lower taxes, lower unemployment and vastly lower interest rates.
There is nothing more absurd in the attack mounted by the Leader of the Opposition on the government’s industrial relations policy than to say that our aim is to cut the wages of Australian workers. That is absurd because it defies history.
Just give a guarantee now!
My guarantee is my record, and I am very proud of my record. I will tell you what: that record gets better and better. During the election campaign I could only talk of real wage increases of 14 per cent. Here we are, almost halfway through the current term, and the real wage increase has gone to 16.8 per cent. Amazingly, it has gone from about 13 per cent in the last 18 months to 16.8 per cent. Yet the Leader of the Opposition runs around saying that I am trying to cut wages. Apart from it being an exercise in stupidity and unfairness to try to cut wages, it flies in the face of the government’s performance.
Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition: as the years go by and you look back on the inanity of your attack on these changes, you will be comforted by the fact that that inanity was matched by the absurdity of the allegations you made in 1996 that our changes were about cutting wages. In 1996 the Labor Party ran around the country saying that the Reith reforms were about cutting wages. Here we are, 10 years later—you are still over there and wages are up by 16.8 per cent.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Has the minister seen media reports criticising aspects of the government’s new workplace relations system? What is the minister’s response?
I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and his abiding interest in reform of the workplace relations system in Australia. Indeed I have seen some media reports of the ACTU beginning what it has called its ‘naming and shaming’ campaign. The target of the union vilification is a small Melbourne construction company that operates in the construction sector both commercially and domestically. This morning on AM the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Combet, attacked this company and Work Choices because of three employees who were made redundant.
Let me deal with the facts in this case rather than the wild rhetoric that has come from the ACTU. Firstly, these employees were indeed made redundant because of a downturn in work in the commercial building sector in Melbourne. Indeed, that is what the owner of the firm said on AM this morning. He said:
Our work is predominantly sporadic anyway at the best of times.
So here is a business dealing with sporadic work in the commercial sector and it has actually offered work in the domestic sector to these employees. Secondly, I am advised, even as I am speaking here, that arrangements for the redundancy provisions for these workers are being undertaken now and that these workers will get their full redundancy payout. The Office of Workplace Services, which I spoke about yesterday, has been boosted and will ensure that that provision does indeed operate.
The third fact is the most telling in relation to this matter. We have had Mr Combet, the Secretary of the ACTU, on national radio this morning and in the press saying that these redundancies are as a result of the Work Choices legislation. The reality, the fact, is entirely true. These redundancies are the result of a certified agreement, certified in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 4 April 2003. One of the parties that took that agreement to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to put these provisions in place was none other than the CFMEU. If Mr Combet were going to be honest, he would be saying that what he is complaining about is an agreement put in place by the CFMEU for the building construction industry in Melbourne. But he is not saying that and the Leader of the Opposition knows that.
Worse than that, there have been redundancies under this agreement over the couple of years since it has been put in place. Have we heard one word from Mr Combet or the Leader of the Opposition about previous redundancies under this agreement? This shows that this is a despicable campaign on the part of the ACTU. I remind the House that last year we had the President of the ACTU on the Lateline television program saying: ‘What I need for my campaign is the family of a worker who has been injured or maimed. That would help our campaign.’ This is outrageous. It is despicable. That is the first thing that can be said about this. The second is that this proves from the very outset—the very first case raised by the ACTU—that you cannot believe what they say. No doubt we will see more claims like this over the coming days as they trawl through to try to find more, but the very first case is an agreement with the CFMEU—what hypocrites!
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his consistent refusal to guarantee that no individual Australian employee will be worse off as a result of his extreme industrial relations changes. I also refer the Prime Minister to his earlier answer where he said that his guarantee is his record. Prime Minister, is it not the case that the government’s and your record on the minimum wage is as follows: if the government’s submissions to the Industrial Relations Commission had been agreed to, over the government’s period in office, those on the minimum wage would currently be $50 a week or $2,600 a year worse off? Is it not the case that the only future for Australian employees is a drop in the minimum wage in real terms?
I thank the member for Perth for asking me a question about my record. I am delighted to tell him of my record.
Mr Stephen Smith interjecting
Order! The member for Perth has asked his question.
Let me start by saying, firstly, that the real wages of Australian workers have risen by 16.8—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. He was asked a question about the fact that he wanted the commission to knock $2,000 off ordinary workers and he now has his chance.
The Prime Minister is entirely in order.
Let me start again. The real wages of Australian workers have risen by 16.8 per cent over the last 9½ years. In real terms, the federal minimum wage has risen by more than 12 per cent under the coalition. Australia’s consistent economic growth and tax cuts in recent years have resulted in an increase in the disposable income of the average Australian production worker. They are the people the Labor Party used to be interested in before they abandoned them and embraced the chattering classes. There was a time when the Labor Party could speak with some heart and authenticity about production workers in this country, but they have long since ceased to bother about representing their interests in the Australian community.
Let me remind the House that average household incomes in Australia have grown by no less than 20.7 per cent in real terms over the period 1994 to 2003-04. The real income of low- and middle-income households—let me emphasise this—has increased by a proportionately greater amount: that is, by 22 per cent. In other words, the Labor Party like to chatter and interject on a point like this—let them go ahead and try to silence me from reminding the Parliament of Australia that under this government the people have enjoyed the greatest increase in household disposable income—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The last thing I want to do is silence you on the minimum wage.
That is not a point of order.
It used to be called muscling up but that expression is not very popular now because of the author of it. Since 1996, real net household wealth has risen by an average of 8.8 per cent a year. Australia’s unemployment rate has fallen from 8.2 per cent in March 1996—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question explicitly on the government’s stance on the minimum wage. They have opposed virtually—
The Prime Minister is in order. I call the Prime Minister.
Australia’s unemployment rate has fallen from 8.2 per cent in March 1996 to 5.3 per cent now. That is about a 30-year low. A total of 1.7 million new jobs have been created under the coalition. Inflation has been contained, averaging just 2.5 per cent per year. Finally, of enormous interest to the people the Labor Party used to try and represent—that is, the home buyers of Australia—household mortgage interest rates are about 7.3 per cent, well below the 17 per cent seen in the early 1990s and the 10.5 per cent in March 1996. On an average new mortgage of about $220,000, the reduction in interest rates since March 1996 saves Australian families about $585 a month in interest charges. I am delighted to be questioned by the opposition on my record.
My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the free trade agreement with the United States is helping Australians who want to work in the United States?
I thank the member for Mackellar for her question. It is a very important question, because the free trade agreement that we negotiated with the United States was about not just the sale of agricultural products and commodities and industrial goods into the United States but also getting access to the United States for our service providers and our professionals. One of the most important things that we were able to achieve, which came through last year, was the establishment of the Australia-only E-3 visa—something we discussed during the negotiations which came through afterwards. It was part of the ongoing work that came out of the United States free trade agreement. This is a visa that allows 10,000 Australians to go and work in the United States every year. This was a significant outcome for Australian service providers, Australian professionals and Australian businesses operating in the United States.
Today I am able to announce that Australian certified practising accountants can now apply for a licence to work in 39 US states without having to do any extra study. Their Australian qualifications have been recognised in 39 states of the United States. This is good news for Australian accountants. It is good news for Australian companies that have business operations and want to use Australian CPAs in their US operations. Our lawyers and engineers are also currently meeting with their US counterparts to harmonise the mutual recognition of qualifications across the Pacific. This is a very important outcome that we have laid a platform for in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. Earlier this month when I met with my counterpart, USTR ambassador Rob Portman, we agreed on a proposal to continue to work together to implement these important agreements—to work with industry groups, to work with professional organisations and to enhance and expand the exchange of professionals across the Pacific.
We all recall the difficulty the Labor Party had in supporting the free trade agreement with the United States. I will acknowledge that, to his credit, the then backbencher and member for Brand was one of the strong supporters of the free trade agreement, but everybody else followed the former member for Werriwa in trying to scuttle the US free trade agreement that has delivered so much for Australia—
Mr Rudd interjecting
The interjection by the member for Griffith is about sugar. Last year our sugar exporters exported an extra 52,000 tonnes of sugar into the US market. Whereas part of the agreement we negotiated with the United States was to eliminate the 35 per cent tariff on canned tuna, today we have had word from the Port Lincoln tuna processors—and I am sure the member for Grey will be very pleased to hear this—that they are sending their first shipment of 10 containers of canned tuna—processed, manufactured, product—out of South Australia into the United States as a result of the US free trade agreement. We remember that most of those opposite, following the member for Werriwa, tried to scuttle the deal that we put together.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Pakistan led by the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Hon. Chaudhary Amir Hussain. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the exchange last night on the ABC’s Lateline program when the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in response to the question, ‘But, if you don’t like them, if you find them abrasive, you can sack them,’ said, ‘That’s right.’ Isn’t this just further confirmation that from yesterday, under your extreme industrial relations changes, Australian employees can be sacked unfairly for any reason or no reason and have no remedy?
The answer to that question is no. Let me remind the House and the Leader of the Opposition that, as from the coming into operation of the law, the former unfair dismissal measures—which, I remind the parliament, were only introduced into the law of Australia in 1994 as a result of a deal made secretly between the ACTU and the then Keating government: they do not date back to Magna Carta or to Federation; they were only introduced in 1994—have been repealed in relation to firms that employ fewer than 100 people. We make no bones about that. We have been very up front about that change. It is a change that we believe will remove a disincentive that existed under the former law in relation to smaller firms in particular when taking on new staff.
But can I remind the Leader of the Opposition, given the breadth of his question, that there are matters and grounds on which employment must not be terminated. I think that, in the light of what he has said and what many other people have said, it is worth going through these. It is worth reminding the parliament that you cannot have your employment terminated because of temporary absence from work because of illness or injury. You cannot have your employment terminated by reason of trade union membership or participation in trade union activities. Equally, you cannot have your employment terminated for non-membership of a trade union or for seeking office or acting or having acted in the capacity of a representative of employees, or for filing a complaint or participation in proceedings against an employer on the grounds of race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status or family responsibilities.
I mention that specifically in relation to the quite misleading advertisement run by the ACTU which clearly implies that a mother is being threatened with the sack because she cannot go to work because her child is ill. That is unlawful. It was unlawful under the former law and it is unlawful under the current law. The advertisement by the ACTU is an absolute disgrace. If you really have the interests of working people at heart—every time I see Mr Combet on the television he talks about his concern for working people—you do not demonstrate your concern for working people by scaring them with dishonest advertisements. You represent your concern for working people by arguing legitimately. You cannot be sacked for refusing to negotiate, make, sign, extend, vary or terminate an AWA. You cannot be sacked for absence from work during maternity leave or other parental leave or for temporary absence from work because of the carrying out of a voluntary emergency management activity.
In addition, the government has included an additional protection in section 615 which makes it unlawful for an employer to dismiss or threaten to dismiss an employee for reasonably refusing to work on public holidays. To claim unlawful termination—and I ask the opposition to listen to this carefully—an employee need only make the allegation that he or she was terminated for an unlawful reason—
Mr Tanner interjecting
Order! The member for Melbourne is warned!
and the burden of proof then rests on the employer to disprove the claim. In other words, we have restored balance to these laws, and it is a balance that is going to result in increased job opportunities and great additional benefits and opportunities for Australian small business.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the results of the Reserve Bank’s financial stability review? What does this review indicate about the importance of sound lending practices?
I thank the honourable member for Kingston for his question. I can inform him that, as part of a six-monthly review, the Reserve Bank today has published a financial stability review of the Australian financial system. It finds that the banking system remains well capitalised and highly profitable, with bad debt levels that are low by both historical and international experience. It also notes that the rate of credit growth has been slowing in Australia from rates of about 20 per cent for household credit growth in 2003 and early 2004 to rates of about 13 per cent in 2006. Similarly, personal credit growth has slowed from around 15 per cent to 10 per cent in the same period.
The Reserve Bank also notes that households do seem to be taking a slightly more cautious approach to finances. Again, if the household sector is saving a little more, that would be a welcome thing. We are seeing a rebalancing of growth in the Australian economy out of consumption and towards the export sector. You cannot maintain credit growth at 20 per cent per annum year after year without that catching up with areas where the economy becomes unbalanced. To see stability arising in relation to the housing market and to see some slowing in relation to credit growth is actually quite a welcome thing.
The Reserve Bank also notes in its report that banks are moving to higher ratios in some of their loans and seem to be moving increasingly to what are called ‘low doc’ loans, where there is less supervision and more self-verification in the application process. The Reserve Bank notes that banks need to be careful that they do not overly relax credit standards, and that is something the government would most certainly endorse. This is a good report of a sound and stable financial system, which has been given by the Reserve Bank, noting important developments in the economy.
While I am on the subject of stability, I should also note another area of stability, in the political firmament, that I think all members of the House would want me to acknowledge and welcome, and that is that we on both sides of the House are very pleased to see that the member for Hotham has been re-endorsed in his preselection. We congratulate him for standing up to the roosters—the Shorten, Conroy, Pakula group—who tried to execute him in a chicken cull! The roosters went on a chicken cull!
Mr Speaker, I refer you to Erskine May, 21st edition, Boulton editor—
The Chief Opposition Whip is raising a point of order?
I am raising a point of order.
Under what standing order?
I am quoting Erskine May.
I am asking you to come to your point of order.
An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question when such explanation—
The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat. I call the Treasurer and ask him to come back to the question.
On the importance of stability to the financial system and politics generally—whilst we welcome the return of the member for Hotham—the member for Corio and the member for Maribyrnong, I think, have the sympathy of both sides of this House, having fallen in a cull by the roosters, undeserved, and they deserve our empathy.
Has the Treasurer completed his answer?
Yes.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to comments by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Administration, Nick Minchin, to the HR Nicholls Society:
There is still a long way to go ... There is still a lot to be done in changing the ... ‘whole edifice’ of IR ... awards, the IR commission, all the rest of it ...
Isn’t Senator Minchin’s disclosure confirmed by a secret Treasury document obtained under freedom of information with the title ‘The regulation of workplace relations—current, proposed ... and for the future’ in which a section under the title ‘Unfinished business’ was blocked out? Prime Minister, wasn’t Senator Nick Minchin just telling the government’s soulmates, the HR Nicholls Society, the truth about the government’s real intention to have a further wave of extra industrial relations changes?
No.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the government’s response to the agreement reached between the United States and India on separation of India’s civilian and military nuclear facilities? Are there any alternative policies?
First, I thank the honourable member for Forrest for his question and for the interest in this agreement. With him being a Western Australian and thinking a lot about India, as you do over there, I can understand him asking the question. The government welcome the agreement between the United States and India essentially for three reasons. First of all, we do welcome the strengthening of the strategic relationship between the United States and India. We believe that that is very much in Australia’s interests. Secondly, it does mean that India’s civilian nuclear facilities will be under international safeguards and subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and we welcome that. Thirdly, obviously, India, with a vast population and a quite rapidly growing economy, is going to have very serious challenges in getting sufficient energy, and it needs clean energy. We do not want to see India using, if you like, unclean energy. Nuclear energy is obviously an option for a country like that.
We have no current intentions to change our policy on uranium sales, but of course India’s plan to bring its civil sector under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards is a matter of considerable interest to us. Therefore, officials from my department and other departments will meet their Indian and United States counterparts to discuss the form and substance of the agreement between India and the United States. This agreement needs still to pass the United States congress. It is going to be discussed in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, of which we are a member. I note during the visit by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, he welcomed and strongly supported this agreement. Of course, that is the position of a number of countries, such as France and Russia. Other countries can see many positive aspects of it and are having consultations with the Indians and the Americans about it.
The honourable member for Forrest asked if there are any alternatives. On that side of the House 23 March is a bit of an anniversary. It is the second anniversary of Mark Latham’s famous ‘troops out by Christmas’ statement. It is a day apparently commemorated in the Labor Party, a day when they make foreign policy speeches. The Leader of the Opposition made a foreign policy speech—which we can come back to on other occasions—and in that speech he said that this agreement between India and the United States showed a ‘serious error of judgment’ and was ‘a major policy mistake’ and, if he were to become the Prime Minister, he would ‘wind back’ an agreement. So the Leader of the Opposition would become the Prime Minister of Australia and he would then wind back the agreement between India and the United States!
Let us be frank about this: that is, I suspect, hyperbole at its worst. Even if he wanted to wind it back, you can rest assured that he would have no capacity whatsoever to do so. What this simply demonstrates is that the Leader of the Opposition has worked very hard to try to persuade commentators that he is some sort of an expert on foreign policy and trade. He is a charlatan. He is a complete charlatan. He knows very little about those issues, and this kind of remark simply demonstrates the point—a point that is only reinforced by—
The minister will resume his seat.
On a point of order—
Has the minister concluded his answer?
Mr Speaker, his answer had nothing to do with the question.
The member does not have the call.
My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would be aware that an estimated 3,500 of Australia’s estimated 4,500 banana and agricultural workers directly employed will lose their jobs over the ensuing fortnight. Could the Prime Minister assure the people of Far North Queensland that arrangements are being looked at to pay Newstart benefits as a part wage to the reconstruction groups rebuilding housing and other buildings and to the farmers, tourist operators and other people similarly rebuilding the industries of the area? The Prime Minister would also be aware of the guidelines proving overly restrictive. In light of this, could the Prime Minister assure Far North Queensland that they will be looked at and revised? Finally, is the Prime Minister aware that industry and local leaders, while appreciative of the Prime Minister’s assistance, are projecting early estimates that only $30 million of the $100 million will ultimately be provided for what is the worst cyclone in Australia’s history and, in financial terms, now one of the two worst natural disasters in Australian history?
I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. Let me acknowledge the extraordinary effort undertaken by him and by the member for Leichhardt—the two federal members whose areas have been most directly affected by this cyclone. When I visited Innisfail and surrounding areas, I was greatly assisted and advised by both those members. Their constant contact with my office and with me personally since then, I continue to appreciate. In the nature of things, the assistance that the government gives on an occasion such as this must always be seen as a work in progress. You start by providing some initial assistance and, as circumstances are better understood, you make some changes. As my answer will reveal, there are a couple of further things that I can indicate, which I know will be of interest to all members of the House.
The estimate of 3,500 to 4,000 has been made by a number of people. It is perhaps a little early to know whether that is accurate, but certainly jobs are at risk as a result of this natural disaster and the government will do everything it can to ensure that the number of people who lose their positions is kept to a minimum and that opportunities are given for re-employment. The best thing that the two governments can do is to get the private sector in this part of Australia going again because, with small business going again, people will be employed or, alternatively, will not lose their jobs. I can confirm that the government is examining the arrangement involving the Newstart benefit. As indicated in the honourable member’s question, it was a proposition put to me last week by the member for Leichhardt as well and it is an issue that we are looking at closely.
The member for Kennedy suggests that the ultimate amount to be spent—I know it is only an early estimate—might be about $30 million. I have to, with great respect, disagree with that. For example, the federal government has already—and it happened late last week—prepaid to the Queensland government some $40 million as a down payment on its share of the natural disaster arrangements that are going to be picked up. I would estimate conservatively the amount—and this is once again based on the best advice I have at the moment; it can vary and I do not want to be made a hostage to this figure—as far as the federal government is concerned, to be well in excess of $100 million. It may in fact go much higher than that, depending on the duration of the reconstruction period and the extent to which the concessional loans offered by the federal government are taken up.
In relation to the concessional loans, I can indicate that the government is looking at some expansion of the eligibility criteria. These are loans that are made available in cooperation with the state government through the natural disaster relief arrangements. We originally announced $200,000 maximum, of which 25 per cent would be a direct cash grant with no repayments of principal or interest in the first two years, with interest being at four per cent, therefore projecting a repayment period of about nine years. I think in anybody’s language that is a highly concessional loan and will be of enormous value to many hundreds of small businesses in the area. Questions have been raised as to whether the eligibility criteria, which include a ceiling of the equivalent of 20 full-time employees, might be a bit harsh. I am looking at that. I am, in principle, quite open to some change to make that more generous because, although 20 full-time positions—not 20 on a head count—will pick up most of the firms, there could be significant employers of people in the banana industry in particular who might not be helped by that. So I am looking at that and also at whether the principal of the loan might be somewhat higher in certain circumstances than the $200,000.
I also inform the House that we have decided on a refinement to the diesel excise relief that I announced on Sunday. I indicated then that we would rebate in full, subject to an offset for any rebates people currently receive, the excise paid on diesel or petrol for power generation for homes and businesses where normal power supplies have not been restored. I said then that we would pay it on the basis of receipts and, because it was to be dated from the time of the disaster, a statutory declaration in lieu of receipt to cover the period before the announcement of the benefit was made. The government has decided that, while it will be open to people to submit receipts, it would be simpler and it would deliver the assistance more effectively if the payments were made by Centrelink on a fixed monthly basis. The figures decided are $280 a month where a household is without reliable electricity and $560 a month where a business is without reliable electricity. These payments will date with effect from the day the cyclone hit, which was 20 March 2006. These payments will be free of tax and we expect that payments will begin to be made by Friday. People who have a higher rate of claim—they use more fuel than this rebate would recompense—can still claim on the basis of actual fuel usage, but processing will be slower than the flat rate option. I think members will appreciate that this is a speedier way of delivering this assistance, and I am particularly indebted to the member for Leichhardt for the representations that he has made to me on this matter.
I think everybody wants to help in relation to this. Can I record the fact that there has been outstanding cooperation between the federal and the Queensland governments. I have kept in regular touch with the Queensland Premier and he has kept in regular touch with me. I spoke earlier today to General Cosgrove, and I know all Australians will congratulate him on this latest demonstration of what a fine Australian citizen he is and what a great leader of men and women General Cosgrove represents.
It has been a difficult time for the people of Far North Queensland. Providentially, there have been, perhaps except in one instance, no deaths as a result of this cyclone. That speaks volumes for the warnings and it speaks volumes for the commonsense of the people. I hope in the weeks ahead that we will all continue to work together to help our fellow Australians to put this disaster behind them.
My question follows on from the question of the previous member but is addressed to the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. Would the minister inform the House how the government is providing support to the victims of Cyclone Larry through various forms of assistance, from the Taxation Office specifically?
I thank the member for Leichhardt and I acknowledge his contribution, as the Prime Minister has just outlined, and that of the members for Herbert and Dawson, who I understand have also visited the devastated region. Also to Mr Katter and to people within his electorate, congratulations for the outstanding support you have all provided. Like all Australians, we were touched by the dreadful situation that occurred after Cyclone Larry. The tremendous outpouring of support from many thousands of Australians to help their fellow Australians who were devastated by Cyclone Larry is a great credit to them and underscores the Australian spirit that is alive and well.
The Australian Taxation Office has been supporting people in Far North Queensland and helping to facilitate support to those people who are most in need, in particular small business people who might have difficulty submitting business activity statements and people who may have lost their advice in relation to tax matters or tax records. The Australian Taxation Office has assisted people to reconstruct records. I have instructed the Australian Taxation Office to assist those people wherever possible.
The last thing I want to say is in relation to the announcement last week, to which the Prime Minister alluded earlier, about the ongoing tax deductibility status of the Queensland Premier’s relief fund and the $10,000 tax-free grant to small businesses and farmers. On Sunday the Prime Minister also spoke in some detail—and he clarified this earlier in question time—of the exact assistance we are able to provide to North Queensland people affected by Cyclone Larry with the diesel or petrol fuel rebate. It is a fantastic, collaborative effort. I congratulate all of those involved in both the Australian government and the Queensland government. All of us want to help wherever we can those people who were most adversely affected by Cyclone Larry, and I can assure the Australian people that the Australian Taxation Office and other government instrumentalities will be providing every assistance to them.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer again to evidence presented to the Cole inquiry yesterday that the minister said to AWB chief executive Andrew Lindberg last year that the AWB ‘can’t be responsible for what happened to the money after it was paid to Alia’. When did the minister first become aware that AWB had made payments to Alia?
I have nothing to add to what I said to the House in November last year, which from my recollection was in the context of the establishment of the Volcker inquiry.
My question is also addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the progress of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate? Are there any alternative views addressing climate change?
I thank the member for Forde for her question and for her interest. As I have told the House before, when I participated in the launch of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate I did so with a number of my colleagues—the Prime Minister himself participated in the opening ceremony—and it brought together ministers from Australia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States as well as leaders from business and industry.
The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which is known as AP6, established a policy implementation committee and task forces. They are ready to implement the ambitious work plans of the AP6. The committee and task forces will begin their first substantial meetings in the United States during next month. The task forces will, for example, identify major flagship projects to demonstrate breakthrough climate technologies, and Australia will be sending about 45 delegates to this meeting, mostly from industry.
AP6 is a groundbreaking approach to addressing climate change that involves countries representing 50 per cent of the world’s emissions, 50 per cent of the world’s GDP and about 50 per cent of the world’s population. It focuses on practical action. The point is that it brings together countries like the United States, China and India, and that is of course crucially important if this issue is to be seriously addressed.
Are there any alternative views? We have heard from a Labour leader over the last two days a very realistic approach, I think, to the whole issue of climate change. Prime Minister Blair has said, ‘The fact that we have a forum where people like Australia and the United States—
Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting
Order! The member for Wills.
What did he say about Kyoto?
There is appalling shouting, Mr Speaker. Manners, manners! Prime Minister Blair said, ‘The fact that we have a forum where people like Australia and the United States sit down with China and India is a very positive change.’
What about Kyoto?
He went on to say:
... we need also to look to the future now ... There will be no agreement worth having that does not involve the United States, China and India ...
I could not agree more with that. One of the numerous shouted interjections I have heard is, ‘What about Kyoto?’ Mr Blair said that Kyoto is not enough. He said, ‘We need to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically—
Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting
Order! The member for Wills is warned!
but Kyoto won’t even stabilise them.’ Of course, that is a point we have been making. We do need a dose of realism in this debate. The honourable member for Grayndler described the AP6 initiative as ‘nothing but spin’, and it has been continually criticised and opposed by the Labor Party. I can only say that AP6 is a fine initiative which is well supported around the world.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the minister’s advice to AWB last year that AWB ‘can’t be responsible for what happened to the money after it was paid to Alia’. I also refer to Australian government intelligence reports of 1998, the first quarter of 2000, November 2000 and September 2001 that confirmed that Alia was a front for Saddam Hussein’s regime. Why did the minister tell AWB last year that it did not matter where AWB payments to Alia were going when the government already knew that Alia was a fully-fledged front company for the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein?
There are a lot of questions in that question. Let me make the simple point—and by the way, I am not verifying the words that have been put in my mouth by counsel representing somebody who is representing someone in the Cole commission; indeed, the last thing I am going to do is get into an ongoing debate with people in the Cole commission about who said what, why, when and where and the exact words they used—that at no time did the government believe, including at that time and including later that year, that AWB Ltd had knowingly and wittingly paid bribes to Saddam Hussein’s regime and that by paying the Jordanian trucking company, AWB Ltd had knowingly been doing so in order to pay bribes to Saddam Hussein’s regime. They maintained the position that they had not been knowingly doing that right up until the beginning of the Cole commission.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister update the House on work being done by Australian troops as part of a coalition to bring security and democracy to Iraq? Minister, are there any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Herbert for his question and for his great advocacy on behalf of and his pride in the Townsville based troops serving in Iraq. Recently I had the privilege of visiting Australian Defence Force personnel who are serving in Iraq. There are 1,350 from the north Arabian Gulf through Iraq in various elements of our deployment and I have never been more proud to be an Australian than to see not only what our Australian Defence Force personnel are doing but why they are doing it. You would be forgiven, as an average Australian, for thinking that things in Iraq are not going well, that progress is not being made. Every single day, we turn on a television or we open a newspaper and we see evidence of the latest act of terrorism that has been conducted by some Saddamists, by jihadists or by insurgents—basically, terrorists and criminals. As we heard yesterday from the British Prime Minister, the intention of those people is to weaken our resolve.
It is estimated that the Iraqi economy will grow this year by 16½ per cent. Also there are now 230,000 Iraqis who are trained in their own policing and security and indeed for their own army. There are 10 million Iraqis today who have access to sewerage services that were denied them under Saddam Hussein and 1.2 million who have access to clean water which they did not have before. There are 3,400 schools in Iraq today that are teaching Iraqi children because they have been refurbished over the last three years and another 700 are on the way.
A recent poll of the Iraqi people found that 64 per cent believe that their country is moving in the right direction. The Iraqi people, unlike us Australians who often take these things for granted, risked their lives on three occasions to vote. Twelve million of them voted and in doing so made a very strong commitment to the democratic principles for which Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and other coalition allies are fighting in Iraq.
I am asked about alternative polices. The British Prime Minister, Mr Blair, said in this House only yesterday:
If the going is tough, we tough it out. This is not a time to walk away. This is a time for the courage to see it through.
The former chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition and commentator Mr Michael Costello put it in fairly Australian terms in the Australian on 13 January 2006 when he said:
To disengage from Iraq now would be the biggest single encouragement the terrorists could get.
If Australia or indeed any one of the coalition allies were to withdraw from Iraq now, it would give the terrorists the opportunity to claim a victory over not only Iraqi democracy but democracy throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world. It would give them the opportunity to claim victory over hopeful optimism, respect for human life and also all of the values this country has held dear in its short history.
My question is again to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the minister’s advice to AWB last year that AWB ‘can’t be responsible for what happened to the money after it was paid to Alia’. I note that, after three questions on this, the minister has not denied the content of that advice. I also refer to the minister’s confirmation that the government knew AWB had made payments to Alia and that the government also knew Alia was a front for Saddam Hussein’s regime. Given that the minister had formal legal obligations under Australian domestic law through the Customs Regulations 1958 to enforce sanctions against Iraq, why did the minister tell AWB that they could not be held responsible for what happened to the money they paid to Alia when in fact they could be held responsible and under law they should be held responsible?
First of all, these alleged comments were in 2005. Secondly, I have made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions, including yesterday, that obviously I do not recall the exact words that were used in the conversation. I made that clear yesterday on a number of occasions and I make it clear again today. But I make the obvious point that AWB Ltd had made it clear to the government throughout, for example, 2005 in the context of the Volcker inquiry and right up until the end of last year that they had not in any way deliberately endeavoured to bribe Saddam Hussein’s regime through phoney payments to a trucking company and that any payments that might have been made were made inadvertently and unintentionally. That is what they said.
Opposition members interjecting—
Honourable members may laugh, and your laughter can well be directed to AWB Ltd if that is how you feel about it. According to the allegation of what I was supposed to have said at this meeting, I understand that the words that the member for Griffith chose not to use were that apparently I said to AWB Ltd, ‘Tell us the truth.’ Apparently I demanded they tell us the truth.
Mr Rudd interjecting
Order! The member for Griffith is warned!
Did they tell us the truth? That is what the Cole inquiry is all about.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Has the minister completed his answer?
Yes.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House how the government’s Strengthening Medicare package has lifted the rate of bulk-billing across Australia? Are there any alternative policies?
I can certainly understand the member for Hinkler’s interest in this issue because, thanks to the policies of the Howard government, the GP bulk-billing rate in Hinkler is up almost 10 per cent over the last 12 months. Bulk-billing is not the be-all and end-all of Medicare, but it is important. It should be widely available, particularly to children and pensioners, and that is just what is happening thanks to the policies of the Howard government.
Thanks to the bulk-billing incentive payments that were part of Strengthening Medicare, the GP bulk-billing rate has lifted from 66 per cent in December 2003 to over 75 per cent last December. Figures released in the last fortnight show that, between 2004 and 2005, the GP bulk-billing rate rose in 144 out of the 150 electorates of this country. In 96 per cent of electorates the bulk-billing rate rose last year. I was interested to note that in the electorate of Brand the bulk-billing rate has risen by almost eight per cent over the last year. The Leader of the Opposition is remarkably silent on this topic.
It’s still less than it used to be!
I hear ‘Sound Effects Mark 2’ over there talking about bulk-billing rates. Let me tell the member for Lalor: in her electorate last year the bulk-billing rate increased by more than 10 per cent to over 80 per cent. So while the member for Lalor has been appearing on Australian Story, making speeches undermining her leader and going on the front page of a magazine dressed in a $15,000 outfit—while she has been doing her Cheryl Kernot impersonations—we have been getting on with the job of delivering better health services to the Australian people.
My question again is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer also to evidence presented in the Cole inquiry yesterday that the government told the AWB’s CEO, Andrew Lindberg, that, in its dealings with the Volcker inquiry, the AWB should ‘keep narrow; be a small target’. Doesn’t the minister’s advice to the AWB last year demonstrate that, in fact, the minister had become the AWB’s man in the government—arguing the AWB’s case to the Volcker inquiry, providing tactical advice to the AWB for its dealings with the Volcker inquiry and acting with reckless disregard for his own obligations under Australian law?
No.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Workforce Participation. Would the minister advise the House on the government’s success in moving Australians into work?
I thank the member for Hughes for her question. Of course, the member for Hughes knows that her current unemployment rate is just three per cent—an extraordinary outcome. Indeed, in Hughes there are some of the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years, significantly lower than when Labor held that seat, prior to 1996. In 1996 the Howard government inherited a moribund, tired Commonwealth Employment Service—the CES. The old CES was not doing anything for unemployed job seekers, nor for those who had vacancies and wanted to see them filled.
A key priority of the new government was to put those unemployed into real jobs for their own sake and also for the sake of the country. In 1998, therefore, the coalition put in place a revolution in the form of a private sector driven Commonwealth employment service, and we called it the Job Network. How has this Job Network performed? Let me tell you: the latest figures show that Job Network has, since February last year and over the last 12 months up to February 2006, helped over 650,000—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order!
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We cannot hear the answers in this part of the parliament, and we would like to.
The member for Hinkler raises a valid point of order. Members will allow the minister to be heard.
The latest figures show that in the 12 months up to February 2006 the Job Network has helped over 650,000 Australians previously on welfare into real jobs—these are long-term jobs. This is an increase of over 50 per cent on the previous 12 months. As well, of those 650,000 new jobs, 43,000 were for those who were previously on the single supporting parent benefit. These are mostly women. This was a doubling of the figures of the previous year. The Job Network also placed over 11,000 people with a disability into work. That was a 64 per cent increase over the previous 12 months. Very significantly, 44,000 of these new-found jobs for people were for Indigenous Australians, who often face multiple barriers. That was double the number of those from the Indigenous community placed in employment in the year before.
So this side of the House is not prepared to do what Labor did, which was simply to pump out short-term courses which led nowhere. Our figures show that we have an extraordinarily effective Job Network. But we are not going to rest on that capacity that we have developed in the last eight years. Through our welfare to work reforms, the Howard government are investing some $3.6 billion to help Australians, particularly those on income support, move into real jobs, into paid work. We recognise in particular people with a disability, people previously on single supporting parent benefits, mature age workers, Indigenous Australians and those who are long-term unemployed; people who may have, as I say, multiple barriers to work. They will be given particular assistance to find real jobs so they can join with the rest of Australia’s workforce in sharing in the bounty of this country. This is very special help that we will deliver through Job Network.
Opposition members interjecting—
Let me remind you again, since the opposition is so keen to know, that Labor presided over an ‘unemployment policy’ where they had at the peak some one million Australians out of work and an almost 11 per cent rate of unemployment. What extraordinary misery! What a disgrace! Let me give you one statistic that I think sums it all up. In the last six months the Australian government placed more people in work in long-term, real jobs than was achieved in the last six years of Labor. In the last six months we found more work for Australians than in the last six years of Labor. So the Howard government will continue to focus our employment policies on creating real jobs for all Australians, particularly for those who face multiple barriers.
Mr Speaker, I ask that the minister table the document from which she was quoting.
Was the minister reading from a confidential document?
Yes.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the fact that in February 2005 Mr Volcker claimed to the Australian ambassador to the UN that the Howard government’s cooperation with the Volcker inquiry had been ‘beyond reticent, even forbidding’. I also refer to reports that the minister instructed the Australian ambassador to the UN in late 2005 to ‘set up a meeting between AWB executives and Mr Volcker in New York’ and, further, that ‘that meeting led to a watering down of the allegations the Volcker report eventually made against the Australian wheat exporter’. Can the minister confirm whether either he or his officials organised for Mr Lindberg and other senior AWB officials to meet with Mr Volcker and his staff in New York in September-October 2005, immediately prior to the publication of the report?
With the greatest of respect, I am not sure who wrote that question but that has all been in the media and played out very extensively.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Would the minister inform the House how the new workplace relations system will benefit Australian small businesses? Are there any alternative policies?
How’s the ad going, Fran?
It’s going well, PM.
Mr Crean interjecting
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may be informed that the member for Hotham perhaps wanted to ask that question of him as well.
Government members—Where the hell were you?
That is what he was asking. I thank my colleague for that question and acknowledge his question. Australia’s 1.2 million small businesses have been looking forward to the day when we could deliver on the major challenges that they have wanted addressed. They have wanted, above all else, a good, strong economy in which to work and they have wanted a flexible workplace relations system. That is what this government has delivered in spades.
I can tell you that small business today, though, are having a bit of a shock because they have now heard that the Leader of the Opposition perhaps has some other plans, and it is yet another version of roll-back. Small business have been right behind this government on every one of the 42 occasions that this government has attempted to get rid of the unfair dismissal laws, which the Leader of the Opposition now plans to reinstate. I can tell this House that, over the past 12 months, as I have gone around the country, small business have said to me at almost every single forum that I have held that what they have wanted to do was to get rid of that problem of ‘go away’ money. That is what this government has delivered. This government understands and appreciates the needs of small business. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition—he proclaimed it quite openly—‘The Labor Party is not for small business.’ The latest alternative policy proves that.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I ask for your assistance, under standing order 105, concerning a long list, unfortunately, of questions that remain unanswered by every minister sitting opposite us today regarding the legal expenditure of the government. Mr Speaker, could you please write to those ministers—most of them are here—and remind them that they are obliged to answer these questions: 2691 to 2709; 2904 to 2922; and 2924, 2925 and 2926. I also ask for your assistance in writing to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs on matters that were raised in question Nos 2927, 2928, 2929 and 2930 regarding the Bali nine. All these questions have been outstanding for more than 100 days.
I thank the member for Gellibrand and I will follow up her request.
Mr Speaker, could you consider the fact that our parliamentary offices here do not have colour printers. We do have them in our electorate offices. I find it very difficult when I need to produce material from committees or on behalf of constituents as part of material in this House. Rather than finding furtive ways of getting things printed in colour in this building, could you let us know whether the matter is under consideration and, if it is not, would you consider it?
I thank the member for Canning. I will make some further inquiries and get back to him.
Mr Speaker, you might not be aware that today our guest the Speaker of the Pakistan People’s Assembly was asked to spread his legs and be frisked as he entered the House. Can you ascertain whether or not this is true? I know that, when members visit other parliaments, we are ushered through as parliamentarians. I think it is incumbent upon those who are entrusted with the security of this place to receive instructions that people such as Speakers and parliamentary delegations from overseas countries are given the same courtesy that we receive when we visit overseas countries.
I thank the member for Franklin for his question. I would remind him that in this parliament all members are asked to pass through metal detection tests. This normally applies to visitors. I will check out the particular request he has made, but I would make the point that generally visitors are also asked to be subjected to the same metal detection tests.
I present an amended schedule showing the allocation to committees of annual reports of departments, agencies, authorities and companies.
The amended schedule read as follows—
41st PARLIAMENT
Speaker’s Schedule
Allocation to Committees of Annual Reports of Government Departments and Agencies
Amended 28 March 2006
Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio
Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission*
National Native Title Tribunal**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Education, Science and Training Portfolio
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies*
* Also referred to the Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training
Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
Indigenous Business Australia*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio
Department of Family, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs*
Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination
Land Councils which fall under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976
Aboriginal Hostels Limited
Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Northern Territory
Aboriginals Benefit Account
Indigenous Land Corporation
Torres Strait Regional Authority
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Health and Ageing Portfolio
Department of Health and Ageing
Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health**
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (regarding indigenous programs)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Environment and Heritage Portfolio
Department of the Environment and Heritage (regarding indigenous programs)*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories (re Australian Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Territories)
Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Australian Landcare Council
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation
Cotton Research and Development Corporation
Dairy Adjustment Authority
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation
Grains Research and Development Corporation
Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation
Land and Water Australia
Landcare Australia Ltd
Murray-Darling Basin Commission
National Rural Advisory Council
Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority
Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Sugar Research and Development Corporation
Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority*
Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority
Wheat Export Authority
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Classification Board*
Classification Review Board*
Office of Film and Literature Classification*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Australian Government Information Management Office
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts*
Australia Business Arts Foundation
Australia Council for the Arts
Australian Broadcasting Authority
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Australian Film Commission
Australian Film, Television and Radio School
Australian National Maritime Museum
Australia Post
Australian Sports Commission
Australian Sports Drug Agency
Bundanon Trust
Film Australia Limited
Australia Film Finance Corporation Ltd
National Archives of Australia and National Archives of Australia Advisory Council
National Gallery of Australia
National Library of Australia
National Museum of Australia
NetAlert Limited
Special Broadcasting Service Corporation
Telstra Corporation Limited
* Also referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (regarding indigenous programs)
Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Australian Transaction and Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)*
CrimTrac*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
Remuneration Tribunal*
* Referred also to Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
Family and Community Services Portfolio
Social Security Appeals Tribunal*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services and the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Department of Finance and Administration
Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust
Commissioner for Superannuation
Commonwealth Grants Commission
Commonwealth Superannuation Administration (ComSuper)
CSS Board
Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust
PSS Board
Department of Human Services*
Australian Hearing***
Centrelink**
Child Support Agency****
Health Insurance Commission***
Health Services Australia***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation and the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services and the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing and the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Health and Aging Portfolio
CRS Australia (Rehabilitation Service) *
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation and the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Australian National Audit Office
Australian Public Service Commission
Commonwealth Ombudsman (incorporates Defence Force Ombudsman, Tax Ombudsman and ACT Ombudsman)*
Management Advisory Committee
Merit Protection Commissioner
Official Establishments Trust
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Treasury Portfolio
Department of the Treasury
Australia and the International Financial Institutions (i.e. Asian Development Bank, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank)
Australian Accounting Standards Board
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission*
Australian Competition Tribunal
Australian Loan Council
Australian Office of Financial Management
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Australian Statistics Advisory Council
Australian Taxation Office
Board of Taxation
Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee
Financial Reporting Council
Foreign Investment Review Board
Inspector-General of Taxation
Life Insurance Actuarial Standards Board
National Competition Council
Payments System Board
Productivity Commission*
Reserve Bank of Australia
Royal Australian Mint
Superannuation Complaints Tribunal
Takeovers Panel
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources
Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training
Education, Science and Training Portfolio
Department of Education, Science and Training*
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies***
Australian National Training Authority**
Australian Research Council*
Council of the Australian National University
National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
Transport and Regional Services Portfolio
Australian Maritime College*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services
Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
Education, Science and Training Portfolio
Department of Education, Science and Training (relating to training)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training
Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
Australian Industrial Relations Commission and Australian Industrial Registry
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation
Comcare
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal*
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency
Indigenous Business Australia**
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission***
Office of the Employment Advocate
Remuneration Tribunal****
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority (Seacare Authority)
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration
Family and Community Services Portfolio
Social Security Appeals Tribunal*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Department of Human Services*
Centrelink**
CRS Australia (Rehabilitation Service)**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services and the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage
Environment and Heritage Portfolio
Department of the Environment and Heritage*
Australian Greenhouse Office
Bureau of Meteorology
Director of National Parks
Environment Protection and Heritage Council
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
National Oceans Office
Natural Heritage Trust
Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator
Office of the Supervising Scientist
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Wet Tropics Management Authority
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories (re Australian Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Territories), and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (regarding indigenous programs)
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Family Court of Australia*
Family Law Council*
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
Family, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio
Department of Family, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs**
Australian Institute of Family Studies
National Childcare Accreditation Council Inc
Office of the Status of Women
Social Security Appeals Tribunal*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
**Also referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Department of Human Services*
Australian Hearing***
Centrelink**
Child Support Agency****
Health Insurance Commission***
Health Services Australia***
CRS Australia (Rehabilitation Service)**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation and the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration
Health and Ageing Portfolio
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare*
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator**
Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health ***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing and the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
Education, Science and Training Portfolio
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Department of Human Services*
Australian Hearing**
Health Insurance Commission**
Health Services Australia**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation and the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Health and Ageing Portfolio
Department of Health and Ageing
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare*
Australian National Council on Drugs
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Medibank Private
National Blood Authority
National Breast Cancer Centre
National Health and Medical Research Council
Professional Services Review
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator**
Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority
Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal
Private Health Insurance Administration Council
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services and the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation
Standing Committee on Industry and Resources
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Australian Customs Service*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Australian Industry Development Corporation
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Industry, Tourism and Resources Portfolio
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources*
Axiss Australia
Industry Research and Development Board*
National Measurement Institute
Pooled Development Funds Registration Board
Snowy Hydro Limited
Tourism Australia
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation
Treasury Portfolio
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission*
Productivity Commission*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Attorney-General’s Department
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Administrative Review Council
Australian Crime Commission
Australian Customs Service*
Australian Federal Police
Australian Government Solicitor
Australian Institute of Criminology
Australian Law Reform Commission
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)*****
Classification Board****
Classification Review Board****
Copyright Tribunal
Criminology Research Council
CrimTrac*******
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Family Court of Australia******
Family Law Council******
Federal Court of Australia
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia******
Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal
High Court of Australia
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission**
Insolvency and Trustee Service, Australia
National Native Title Tribunal***
Office of Film and Literature Classification****
Office of Parliamentary Counsel
Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
******* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman*
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Standing Committee on Science and Innovation
Education, Science and Training Portfolio
Department of Education, Science and Training*
Anglo-Australian Telescope Board
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation**
Australian Research Council*
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
Health and Ageing Portfolio
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services and the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
Industry, Tourism and Resources Portfolio
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources*
Industry Research and Development Board*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources
Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Australian River Co. Limited (reports year end of 30 November)
Transport and Regional Services Portfolio
Department of Transport and Regional Services*
Airservices Australia
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Australian Maritime College**
Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
International Air Services Commission
Maritime Industry Finance Co. Ltd
National Capital Authority
National Transport Commission
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation
Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Australian Electoral Commission
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Defence Portfolio (including Veterans’ Affairs)
Department of Defence
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund
Australian War Memorial
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority
Defence Housing Authority
Frontline Defence Services
Judge Advocate General
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees No. 1
National Treatment Monitoring Committee
Repatriation Commission
Repatriation Medical Authority
Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Trust
Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund
Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund
Veterans’ Review Board
Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office
AusAID
Australia-China Council
Australia-India Council
Australia-Indonesia Institute
Australia-Japan Foundation
Australia-Korea Foundation
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research*
Australian Trade Commission
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Portfolio
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman*
Office of National Assessments
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Portfolio
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs*
Migration Review Tribunal
Migration Agents Registration Authority
Refugee Review Tribunal
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Environment and Heritage Portfolio
Department of the Environment and Heritage* (re Australian Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Territories)
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage
Transport and Regional Services Portfolio
Department of Transport and Regional Services*
National Capital Authority*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
I present letters from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory forwarding copies of resolutions of the assembly relating to foreign fishing incursions in Northern Australia and cane toads in the Territory.
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports for 2005-06 entitled Audit report No. 34: Advance passenger processing—Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Audit report No. 35: The Australian Taxation Office’s administration of activity statement high risk refunds.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
I present the following reports from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account: Examination of annual reports 2004-2005 and Operation of native title representative bodies, incorporating dissenting reports, together with evidence received by the committee. These reports were received by me on 21 March, and the committee expired on 23 March 2006 as provided for under the Native Title Act.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
Documents are presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following documents:Medical Indemnity Act—Report by the Australian Government Actuary on the costs of the Australian Government’s run-off cover scheme for medical indemnity insurers for 2004-05National Occupational Health and Safety Commission—Report for the period 1 July to 31 December 2005 [Final report]
Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That this House acknowledge the terrible impact that Cyclone Larry has had on the residents of far north Queensland and recognise the efforts and contributions of those communities, and of governments, to restore normal life to the region.
I know I speak for all members when I recall the shock and dismay that we have all experienced this past week at the previously unimaginable scenes of devastation in Far North Queensland left in the wake of tropical Cyclone Larry: the image of a banana farmer overlooking his plantation where not a single tree is left standing, the sight of homes completely destroyed or demolished. Hospitals, schools, businesses, sporting facilities and community centres—no structures escaped the wrath of this category 5 wind force cyclone as it swept across the coastline on Monday morning eight days ago.
The initial assessments that same day told the story. Situation reports estimated that 65 per cent of buildings in Innisfail had suffered structural damage, 100 per cent some form of damage. Those reports indicated that 90 per cent of the vegetation and 100 per cent of the banana crops in the area had been destroyed. It was not the severity of the damage to the infrastructure and long-term ramifications for the local economy that were immediately apparent in the aftermath of the tragedy; it was the untold human cost of a community reeling to come to grips with the force of nature that had changed their lives forever. No dollar figure could ever quantify the impact of such a devastating event upon a community, but when people emerged from what was left of their homes on Monday morning nothing could have prepared them for what they witnessed: their homes, their livelihoods and their communities flattened in one fell swoop. A tragedy of previously unimaginable scale unfolded in just a few short, horrifying hours.
The Australian government’s response was immediate and comprehensive, but no-one estimated the enormity of the task ahead. Torrential rain and extensive flooding after the initial event provided an additional level of complexity to the challenge of the recovery operation. With road access to the north and south of Innisfail cut off and the sodden Innisfail airstrip rendered incapable of accommodating heavy aircraft, smaller aircraft and landing aircraft were sourced to assist in moving large items and emergency supplies into the township.
The Australian Defence Force mobilised immediately, and more than 400 personnel continue to work closely with state and federal agencies to help devastated communities recover and rebuild. Defence assets deployed as part of the relief operation included seven Blackhawk helicopters, three Army Iroquois helicopters, one Army Chinook helicopter, two Navy Seahawk helicopters, one Navy landing craft and three C130 Hercules aircraft. A Combat Service Support Battalion set up at Innisfail Showgrounds, providing emergency support to the local population, including with the establishment of a water purification unit capable of producing 7,500 litres per hour, the distribution of 16,000 one-man ration packs and thousands of litres of bottled water, the establishment of a field kitchen for the preparation of fresh food for residents, the provision of a bath unit that can shower up to 120 persons per hour, and the capability to provide up to 500 beds and a primary health care support team and environmental health officers. There is no question that the Defence Force has been outstanding in its ability to respond quickly and effectively to this disaster.
Other agencies have responded admirably to the events and tragedies that emerged, to help communities get back on their feet in what are the most difficult of circumstances. Across all agencies it is clear that the Commonwealth stands ready to support the people of Far North Queensland. To date Emergency Management Australia has ensured that 35 formal requests have been acted upon by a total of 11 government agencies. After witnessing the devastation first hand, the Prime Minister announced that the government is providing a comprehensive package of direct financial assistance to people at this difficult time. In total, more than $100 million of assistance has been committed in relief payments. These will be largely delivered through Centrelink.
The Prime Minister today made further announcements about assistance that he first mentioned on Sunday, 26 March. He said in his statement to this House and also in a statement that he has issued formally that, while it remains open for people to submit receipts in relation to power, which we are seeking to have restored, he has determined administratively for a quicker and easier approach that anyone who states that they have used power for the purposes of power generation will be eligible for an excise relief payment backdated to the day of tropical Cyclone Larry. The payments made by Centrelink will be as follows: $280 per month where the household is without reliable electricity and $560 per month where the business is without reliable electricity. Those payments will be tax free, and the expectation is that the payments will begin to be made by Friday. I mention this matter because we continue to keep under review the arrangements that we have in place. Where we can enhance those further in a meaningful way, that will happen.
In addition to those matters mentioned by the Prime Minister, the Department of Transport and Regional Services is helping to meet the immediate personal hardship situations and distress costs through the advance of $40 million to Queensland under the natural disaster relief arrangements. Under these arrangements, concessional loans of up to $200,000 will be eligible to farmers and small businesses to help re-establish their enterprises. The Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources will assist by offering one-off, tax-free grants to help businesses with immediate restocking, replanting and clean-up activities. The clean-up and recovery operations require close cooperation of all government agencies across jurisdictions.
I was particularly briefed that the cyclone was imminent. I was aware of the steps that were being taken by Queensland to forewarn local residents. I have personal and family reasons for being conscious of those matters, because I had a daughter living in Cairns at the time and was, as any parent would be, in touch with her during this emergency.
I spoke immediately after it with Pat Purcell, the Queensland Minister for Emergency Services, and put in place arrangements with the agency that works to me, Emergency Management Australia, within hours of the cyclone crossing the coast. Emergency Management Australia had convened the Australian government Counter-Disaster Task Force to deal with requests for assistance from the Queensland government. The Prime Minister, as he has outlined, had contact with the Premier, and I, as I have already mentioned, had spoken with Pat Purcell, and in order to ensure that these matters worked as seamlessly as possible we continued that very close cooperation. Matters raised with me by Pat Purcell I actioned. We wanted to ensure that every step that the Commonwealth could take reasonably was implemented effectively and in a timely fashion.
I think this does reflect the major strength of our well-tried and tested cross-jurisdictional emergency management arrangements. It is all too easy, when looking at what has happened further afield where governments have to work together, to take for granted that governments here will be able to work collaboratively together. I have to say that it does not happen by accident. It is because we have put in place collaborative arrangements, involving the Commonwealth, states and local government through the cross-jurisdictional emergency management arrangements, that there is the capacity for governments to act quickly and effectively together. These arrangements recognise of course that operational decisions are often best made by state authorities, who are in the position to assess priorities of need on the ground, because that is where they are.
This is not to say that there were not unavoidable delays and that assistance in some cases was not received as quickly as we would have liked. Nevertheless, we were working on those matters immediately after the disaster struck. We understand the frustration of the local people and the difficulty and uncertainty they experienced in the immediate aftermath of the cyclone. Queenslanders, and I am sure the member for Leichhardt and the member for Herbert, will tell particularly of the exploits of North Queenslanders. They are renowned for their resilience. It is a trait that we have seen from the population generally in the region in the past week in the face of extreme adversity. Communities have pulled together, neighbours have helped one another and so too have complete strangers. It is these endearing human qualities that remind us of what makes us as Australians, I think, unique in many respects.
I would like to thank people for their patience and their willingness to roll up their sleeves and get on with the job of cleaning up and rebuilding their towns and centres. I want to assure the people of Far North Queensland on behalf of the government that we will not forget you in these circumstances, and I suspect that with the former Chief of the Defence Force, Peter Cosgrove, at the helm of the recovery effort we will not be allowed to forget that this is a long-time challenge. The Australian government is in there for the long haul. We stand ready to continue to offer assistance wherever it is needed.
I support the motion moved by the Attorney-General. Just over a week ago Cyclone Larry tore through the communities of Innisfail and the surrounding towns and districts. Miraculously, but sadly, only one person was killed and few were seriously injured. In the space of a few hours, winds up to 290 kilometres an hour destroyed thousands of homes and businesses, ruined banana and sugar crops and destroyed the livelihoods and hopes of very many people.
The damage bill is substantial and the cost of rebuilding immense. At the outset of these remarks, I want to thank the Prime Minister for including me in his party that went north to meet with Peter Beattie to tour the sites of damage and destruction in the immediate aftermath of the horrific event. I can assure honourable members that what they saw on their television services in the nights that followed was not an isolated representation. This is one of those occasions where the shock obtained from the evening news services could not possibly encompass the damage actually suffered—extraordinary, widespread damage that will take a very long time to deal with.
The value of the political leadership of the state and country turning up, along with state and federal members from the area, was an opportunity to say to the people of Innisfail and the surrounding areas that the Australian people stand behind you in the circumstances you now confront. We are a people who responded generously to a natural disaster, the tsunami, in our region a year or so ago. We will stand with you at least as well as we did then, when there were enormous outpourings of generosity, in order to deal with the circumstances in which you now find yourselves.
Naturally enough, as the crisis unfolded there was invariably going to be a struggle on the part of emergency authorities, police services and governments to get to grips with the enormity of it, and, as a result, people’s patience would be, and was, tried sorely. It is in that context that it was very good to get the stories of self-help that emerged from the region. For starters, the extraordinarily low casualty level speaks enormously well of the people of the area. They were well prepared. They knew how to defend themselves in circumstances where a cyclone hit. Secondly, there was a real concern and care for each other, even though most were shocked and traumatised by the destruction of things that held such both sentimental and practical value for them.
I met a chap in Babinda who had spent the previous couple of days—and was continuing to do it—going through all those areas that he knew were inhabited by neighbours who were elderly and had started the process of cleaning up and taking away in his small truck the wreckage around their yards. We all saw in Innisfail the activities of butchers and a restaurateur who, confronting a situation in which people simply were not being fed and where food was scarce, emptied their storage facilities to feed the population and ensure that survival could take place.
You could go through a whole range of anecdotes about self-help. It does not get away from the fact, of course, that people are deeply traumatised and have very high expectations of government. To this point, the reaction of governments has been, to my mind, fulfilling those expectations. There is also the undertaking by both state and federal governments that whatever measures have been put in place to this point are not necessarily the last of the things that they will do.
I thought it was a very good move to put General Peter Cosgrove in charge. One of the things you can say about soldiers is that they know how to work through logistics issues. They know how to work around officialdom or blockages when they confront logistics problems. I know that General Cosgrove will stick to his task until he believes that it is satisfactorily concluded. I want to praise the local federal and state members. I want to praise the Queensland Premier as well. The Queensland Premier has spent a considerable amount of time there and he has tried his very best to keep on top of the issues as they emerge and to keep the rest of the country informed. I have words of praise too for the member for Kennedy and the member for Leichhardt in doing their jobs as local representatives in the circumstances. I want to add to that list Warren Pitt, who is the local state member directly concerned with the area most seriously affected.
Rebuilding lives, businesses, farms and buildings will take commitment, energy and money. The money pledged not only by governments but by the Australian people will be very well spent. It will, however, take time. Fifteen thousand homes are still without power and all face the dogged task of cleaning up and restoring services. I remember talking to one woman who owned a beautiful heritage hotel which looked as though it had been the object of an artillery barrage. The water was still seeping in through the roof. We must remember that the people in Innisfail are in the middle of the wet and the rain is virtually continuous. Any queuing is done in the most inclement and difficult circumstances. I think the hotel owner understood—she had before her decent insurance and decent support—there would be no monetary difficulties in handling the problem. But there is just the despair, the trauma and the horror at looking around at what had been built and what had given people so much joy for so long. She had to stand in the middle of that wreckage and face the fact that she, her husband, her family and their workers will be tied up for months and months in attempting a decent repair of that hotel to get it back to being fully operational again.
We have to understand that the workforce to do the job does not exist in the region. There are not sufficient builders, carpenters and those associated with the building industry to do the job. It is not going to be easy to mobilise the personnel to do the tasks that are necessary to see that people are going to be adequately housed. What that means is that the hundreds of volunteers, SES personnel and defence forces helping those devastated communities to get back on their feet are actually going to be required for a long time. It is another reason that it is important that there is good local representation handling these issues and a good man like General Cosgrove on the job. The fact of the matter is that this will still be a major problem for the people of the area long after this has passed from the 24-hour news cycle. It is going to be a substantial task for months, if not years, to bring an element of normality back to the lives of the people of Innisfail. But they need to know that the federal and state parliaments are seized of this matter and they will not cease to be seized of it until the job is done.
I would like to share some of my experiences of the dreadful situation that occurred at seven o’clock last Monday, 20 March when Cyclone Larry crossed the coast near Innisfail. I have to say that the preparedness of the community obviously can be seen by the lack of loss of life, if you like, in this dreadful catastrophe and also by the minimal amount of injuries. In preparation for the cyclone, quite a number of residents were removed from areas that were considered vulnerable. Full marks go to the state emergency authorities in taking that initiative and removing those people from harm.
From my residence in Cairns, just after 8.15 on Monday morning, I drove the 50-odd kilometres to Babinda to where my mum lives. I had to pry her out from under her bed where she was seeking shelter with her dog after quite a bit of the roof of her house had been removed. It was quite surreal to travel down through that area at that time. Some of the power poles were still on fire, some of the transformers were going off like firecrackers and there were powerlines and debris—vegetation et cetera—all over the road as I moved further south from Cairns. You started to see the starkness of many of the rainforest hills as you came closer to Babinda where the trees were totally devoid of any leaves. The waters were starting to rise with the rain that was continuing to come down. It was an amazing feeling. It was a great relief when I was able to reach my mum, but I was devastated at the impact, particularly as I got closer to Babinda, of the destruction in the community. In Innisfail, I think, about 65 per cent of their buildings were damaged; in Babinda, I think it was closer to 80 per cent. Whilst it is a smaller community, it certainly suffered very badly.
The other thing that I noticed as I travelled through the area was the sugar cane. As we know, sugar has been having a hard time in recent years, but the industry was faced with a bumper crop and record prices for the first time in many years. Not only was the cane lying on its side as a result of the wind but also in many of these areas it had been ripped out by its roots. I understand that about 60 per cent of the crop in these affected areas has been lost. As the Attorney mentioned earlier, about 100 per cent of the banana crop has been lost.
This was a rather unusual cyclone. Its intensity was not unlike that of Cyclone Tracy which hit Darwin, but it moved a lot quicker. Whereas the local impact of Tracy was about 40 kilometres from where it hit the landfall, with Larry, because it was moving so quickly—something like 25 to 30 kilometres an hour—the intensity was maintained as it went over the mountains into areas deemed to be cyclone-free. Areas as west as Ravenshoe and Herberton in the Atherton Tablelands suffered very severe losses. Other industries, such as dairying, horticulture, aquaculture, rare and tropical fruits and plants and flowers, have all been quite severely damaged and will be without income for a considerable period. It will take some years before the macadamia and avocado industries recover. It will be at least a season before other industries, such as the sugar and banana industries, start to recover.
It took a couple of days for the impact to really set in. I have to say that the response of the emergency services was nothing short of outstanding. My full credit goes to all of those emergency services on the tablelands and the coast that responded pretty much immediately and provided food and emergency accommodation. Ergon was out there almost immediately looking at repairing services. A large number of areas have now had their power restored. Today Ergon announced that it expects the majority of its areas outside of Innisfail will have power restored within seven days. That in itself is absolutely amazing.
When such a disaster occurs, unfortunately the media tend to focus on a few negatives, but there were many positives from within the community. I acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition went with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to visit the area within a couple of days of the disaster. I understand they did not go there earlier because they did not want to get in the road; they thought they would let things start to happen before they arrived.
I also acknowledge the outstanding contribution of the Premier of Queensland. There was an all-of-government response. Johnston shire’s Neil Clarke deserves special mention for the work that he has done after seeing his community almost totally destroyed. My colleague the member for Kennedy has also worked very much on the ground with the community. Other mayors in the tablelands shires—and of course Mayor Byrne, who is in this place today—were also involved in offering community support. ADF helicopters and on-the-ground crews have done a wonderful amount of work. Greg Goebel from the Red Cross has been in there, as has the Salvation Army. But there have been lots of others.
The business community has been absolutely unbelievable. For example, Better Homes, a building company in Cairns, basically closed their business and shifted their entire workforce to Innisfail for a week. They took two apprentices, nine carpenters, a handyman, bobcats, trucks and equipment and moved down there for a week. They come home every night because they do not want to take up accommodation that is in short supply. They go back in the morning with supplies. I congratulate Wayne and Jenny Cavallaro and give them recognition for the work they are doing. Domino’s Pizza, for example, within a couple of days, sent down 2,000 pizzas to Innisfail. A young woman who has a business in Atherton—Jill Fisher—rang me and said: ‘I have a catering business. It’s a mobile kitchen. Unfortunately, since the cyclone, business has stopped, but I really don’t want to sit here and feel sorry for myself when I see what is happening in Innisfail. Can I take my mobile kitchen down to Innisfail and start cooking meals at Babinda or wherever I am needed? I will do it free of charge.’
We saw this sort of generosity on the Sunrise program on Channel 7 when David Koch and the crew looked for tradesmen from all over the country. They came together in Sydney. Again, Qantas came forward in support—and full recognition goes to Qantas as a corporate citizen—and flew 120-odd tradesmen to Innisfail on Monday to start helping in the rebuilding. We saw 40 firefighters from the Gold Coast, Ipswich and Gatton. There were 15 volunteer nurses from the Gold Coast Hospital. All of these people came together. General Cosgrove said, ‘While it is devastating for the community, at the end of the day, with the community spirit that we see, there is no doubt at all that the community is going to be built better and bigger in the end.’ The member for Canberra is in the chamber. She will recall similar community spirit when the Canberra bushfires occurred not so long ago.
But there are a couple of things that we really need to do, and I would like to quickly focus on those in the time I have left. First of all, I think all of us in this place can get the message out that Far North Queensland is still open for business from a tourism perspective. Do not cancel your holidays. Please come up there, because that will help to keep the economy going. In Cairns, for example, 40 per cent of our economy is tourism. If people stay away, that is going to add to the problems we already have.
Freight subsidies are another thing. I appreciate the Prime Minister’s announcement on support for generators and fuel, but we should understand that freight that is brought into places like Innisfail and Babinda is a backload. Primary produce such as bananas et cetera is taken down south and then fresh fruit and vegetables and other things are backloaded into these areas. But there is no fresh fruit—no bananas and so on—to take south any more, so we need to look at ways to reduce freight costs. If we do not do that, when trucks bring produce from the south and are taken back empty, it is going to increase the cost of these products by 60 to 80 per cent for a community that cannot afford it. So we need to look at this and take it into consideration. I appreciate the fact that our support is able to continue to move it—it is a moving feast—and this is one area in which we really need to do it.
On income support, I think Centrelink and the Minister for Human Services, Joe Hockey, and his team have done a fantastic job. But there are many thousands of people out of work, particularly in the banana industry, and we need to keep their skills in town. Maybe we could look at a work for the dole project or some sort of subsidy—they would normally get social security, because they are out of work—to allow them to continue to work on the farms as part of a massive clean-up. We can keep the skills base there to help the farmers to clean up their farms so that they can start to replant and get their production back. We can still retain the work base within those communities. They cannot afford to lose it.
There is another area I am concerned about because of personal experience. I have a couple of very aged relatives who have lost everything. An uncle of mine, Max Anderson—I am sure he will not mind me using his name—lived at Miriwini and his house was totally destroyed. He is in his 70s and suffers from chronic emphysema. There are a lot of Max Andersons out there—maybe not with emphysema but of that age—living in old houses. Remember that in Babinda and Innisfail a lot of young ones move out of town and go to Cairns, Townsville or further afield for work once they leave school. But the old people stay there. There are lots of elderly women, like my mum, still living in town. They do not want to leave because it is their home town. They are living in houses that have been there forever, but these houses have been demolished by the cyclone.
My uncle is insured but it is an old house. The insurance company said they would pay him out completely—$130,000—but what is that going to build? The insurance company are doing fine—they are doing the right thing—but $130,000 will build nothing. In his 70s, with a health condition and on an age pension, there is no way in the world he can do it. So his only option is an old persons home, of which there are none in Innisfail or Babinda. A lot of people are in this situation. There are a lot of elderly people there and we have to relocate them out of their communities and into Cairns, Townsville or other places. Understand that a lot of people stay there because of their independence, because of their association with the community and also because of their pets. I propose that maybe we can respond to this situation by looking at some sort of group housing for these individuals within their community, where they can have a garden and where they can keep a pet. We could be looking at 10 or 12 of these in Babinda and 10 or 12 in Innisfail. To give them an alternative, they could use their insurance money to pay, if you like, for the strata titling of their unit. It is infrastructure which can stay for the future and it will keep these elderly people in their own towns. If we take these people away, we really do not have a whole community any more. There should be a bit of lateral thinking here in order to keep these people in their communities. (Time expired)
Before I left Innisfail, the last two people I saw as I was racing down the street to catch a taxi were Carl and Jenny Hockey. I promised that I would table in the House this photograph of their house. You can see that there is just one panel of about three feet left on it. I have asked for the photograph to be photostated and distributed. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the photograph.
Leave granted.
I promised also that I would mention that the Allianz insurance company said it could not pay until it saw whether their electrical goods—their refrigerator and those sorts of things—were working when they were dried out. But you will see no electrical goods or anything there at all—there is just nothing. I think it would be dangerous. There are two people in the photograph.
My first image of the destruction was of an irregular watering hole of mine, the Marillion Hotel—a beautiful old building. The upper storey was only about three or four feet off the ground. My mouth dropped open as I got out of the car and looked at it. Three voices from inside yelled out: ‘Come in here, you mongrel, and shout! It’d be the first time ever!’ That will give you some idea of the resilience of the people in the area. In the first street I went down, the first two houses looked all right to me—though one seemed to have damage to its shed. The third house was gone completely. The fourth house had a tree that was much bigger than me—it was 40 feet—right across the top of it. Our building code is magnificent. That house took the full weight of that tree, which was just sitting on top of it. When the people opened the door, water came out and went down the stairs. They said: ‘Don’t worry about us; we’ve got no problems. But the poor people over the road!’
I walked over the road and found that all the back and top of that house was gone completely. The next house had a whole roof in front of it, but I do not know whose roof it was. The next house has to be demolished and replaced and the next one is badly damaged. Coming back up the other street, one house was badly damaged and another was completely destroyed—those were the four houses in that street. That is pretty much the situation for about half of Innisfail—East Innisfail. Kurrimine Beach and Bingil Bay might be worse than that. That will give you some idea of what we are dealing with—and, if that photo is passed around, you will also see what we are dealing with.
I want to publicly thank Peter Beattie. A lot of us have our differences and disagreements, and I am not always his admirer, but he was on the ground immediately. We faced a very angry crowd and the Prime Minister and Premier very rightly steered away from that crowd. There were 400 people there who had been standing in teeming rain, and a lot of them were into their third day waiting for handouts. So, when everyone says it was marvellous, I am sorry: 400 people were standing out there! They were different people, because the queue came and went. The Premier went down and faced the music later in the day. I really confronted him—took him aside, of course, not in front of the crowd—and said, ‘This is simply not working. The only time it worked was for the four or five hours you were in here acting like Mussolini.’ That is absolutely what you must have in that situation: someone giving orders—not arguing, not explaining but just giving the orders and getting it done. To give him his due, the next day the announcement was made about Cosgrove. He said he was coming to the same sort of conclusion. I said, ‘You need a military chain of command here—a definitive chain of command.’
In those two areas, those people stood in the teeming rain because we had no tarps. I went with a bloke on Monday to get a tarp. There were no tarps, and I had a fight on Monday lunchtime with all the powers that be—I was very unpleasant and made myself very unpopular over it. On Wednesday the same bloke was still looking for a tarp. They had arrived at the airstrip and they were being distributed by people to certain people, but they were not at the distribution point even on Wednesday afternoon. Things were going wrong. I must emphasise that there was one official living north of this area but, except for him, I would really find it difficult to criticise a single person. Everyone was in there trying hard for 20 hours. On the Monday night, one policeman had been there all day. He was there early in the morning when I was there and he was still there at nine o’clock at night and he had not eaten. I said, ‘I bought you a pie, mate,’ and he said, ‘It’s stone cold.’ I said, ‘Yeah, but the Coca-Cola’s hot!’ Everyone sort of laughed, but it really was not that funny.
You learn things. The thing I would plead with anyone in the future is: you must have a centralised command system; there must be one person who has the authority to give orders. The SES did a magnificent job—Pat Russell and the minister, Wayne Coutts, did an excellent job—but they were not in a position to say, ‘Go over there and do that.’ They did not have that sort of power and that sort of power was needed. We have it in place now, but these are things we learn. The powerlines must go underneath the ground. There is no other way. In fact, there has been a controversy raging about them putting another huge transmission line along the coast. There have been 2,000 turn out in the demonstrations against it, but the powerlines must go underground. They cost more money, but I would say the losses in electricity alone to the state government would exceed $100 million, and that may even be a very conservative figure. My principal secretary lives down that street in the first town where the hotel was. The big steel lamp that hangs over the intersection there was bent right over, all the powerlines were across the street and a telephone pole was clean snapped off. I saw another wooden telephone pole snapped in two places, to give you some idea of the force that we were dealing with here.
The highway is supposed to be able to handle everything but a one-in-100 year flood. Quite frankly, if it was not a spite against me at the last election, there would still be no work on that section between the Murray Flats and south of Tully. The Australian National Highway is pretty well one in 100 years—I am very familiar with it—but that section is going out every three years. When people were in desperate straits for electricity, the generators arrived at Tully and could not get through. They had to go back to Townsville, back to Charters Towers, all the way up the inland highway and then back down again down the Palmerston Highway. So we lost virtually a day in that round-trip because nobody had bothered to upgrade the highway.
We are claiming this is the worst natural disaster in Australian history. I have not got time to go into all the figures, but there is not a single banana tree standing—and 92 per cent of Australia’s production comes out of that area. There is $300 million lost in that one industry alone. On the early reports from the sugar industry, I do not doubt that it will be pretty close to $200 million lost there. We went through all the other industries at Atherton, and I clocked it up at over $120 million in avocados, lychees and macadamias—about 20 or 30 per cent of Australia’s production coming from that area. It will be five, six or seven years before a lot of those trees bear again. Whilst it is still hard to put a figure on the houses that have been damaged, the original figure was that 5,000 homes were in a desperate situation and needed tarpaulins. Most certainly I would be surprised if there were not 2,000 houses that need to be rebuilt there. That may be high, but they are my estimates. I just reeled you off one street that I drove down. I would say that is a pretty fair estimate for about a third of the entire area with about 35,000 people living in it. That is not much fewer than in Darwin, which had under 50,000 at the time of Cyclone Tracy. I look over here at my colleague Warren Entsch and thank him very much for his assistance. His area is a bit out of it, and we appreciate his help.
When the economy in Indonesia collapsed, we found a thousand million dollars to help the Indonesians. This disaster involves our own people, here. At the moment, 2,000 or 3,000 people are living in sheds or lean-tos or under tarpaulins. It has been teeming with rain. It rained almost the entire week, which is why I am a bit croaky in the voice.
Almost the entire council at Innisfail—George Pervan; Tommy Mauloni, who is the local poet as well as being a councillor; Dave McCarthy, who got onto us about the excise, an issue which the Prime Minister has acted on so swiftly and with such generosity; and our mayor, Neil Clarke—and I made it our business to be seen in the street, from sun-up to sundown. It meant a lot to the people. I know politicians get criticised but, where they are innocuous and just trying to give a helping hand, we appreciate very much their assistance and put it on the public record, as with the member for Dawson.
Turning to the substantial matters: the banana industry is worth $300 million. Economists work on a ratio of 20 jobs for every million dollars—that is six thousand jobs. Certainly, over 4,000 jobs have been directly affected by the cyclone. They are not highly paid jobs. Many people work in this industry. Some of them are pretty hard cases, but, whatever criticism might be made of them, they pick your bananas for you. Probably about 800 or 900 people will be retained. But it is not only bananas; there are the other industries.
Many people are now walking the streets; they have no income and many have no homes. We need the Newstart allowance to be made available—I know it is difficult, because we have to work out guidelines. We need it to go into wages, maybe $400 a week. There is $450 coming from Newstart and $200 will come from farmers, tourist operators and rebuilders—the people who are rebuilding homes.
There is a huge gap, as the member for Leichhardt said, between the cost of rebuilding and the insurance payouts. I am not condemning the insurance companies, and I single out the NRMA for praise—their staff were standing in the main street, with their ties and white shirts on, from day one, on Monday. But I am concerned that there is a huge gap between the insurance cover and what it is going to cost people to rebuild. Fred Luzio rang me just before I came into the House. He said to rebuild the cinema will probably cost $500,000—I hope he does not mind me saying this—but the insurance on it will probably be $220,000. He is not certain of either figure at this stage, but that is what it looks like. There is a huge gap.
We need subsidised wages, if I can use that term. Are we going to pay people virtually nothing to sit on their backsides to do nothing or are we going to pay them a decent wage and have them rebuilding our communities for us? We plead with the Prime Minister to get onto that. Quite a few people I have spoken to do not know that a mill is in danger of closing in this area. It was very seriously damaged in the cyclone. I spoke about it to a bloke from another mill, and he said, ‘No, they’ll be taking people with seniority from that mill and people that were just newly put on, like myself, will be gone.’ I thought he and his wife would be nice and safe, but he said, ‘No way. I’ll be losing my job at the mill that will stay open.’ His wife, who is a schoolteacher, said, ‘I’m a relief teacher, but I get three or four days work. But if all of those people move away from that area’—and she said that two families had already left—‘I won’t have any relief teaching, so we’ll have no income in this family at all.’ I plead with the government to understand that many people are in that situation. They do not fit within the guidelines and will get nothing out of this.
People need to understand what the situation has been like there. I was caught out myself when I came into town with 50 or 100 bucks—whatever it was in my pocket—and I ran out of money. I went to buy some food, and I had no money. Plastic magic does not work if you have not got electricity. The banks are all closed because they have no electricity; they cannot operate anything. So I said to the shopkeeper, ‘Cheque?’ and the bloke burst out laughing at me. Then I said, ‘You know I wasn’t serious.’ So I went hungry for all of Tuesday. Everyone else was in the same situation as me. If they were lucky enough to have fuel in their car, they went to Cairns, but a lot of people were not in that category. A lot did not have a car. They had to stand in a line to get money to buy food, which was the reason they were out there in the teeming rain all the time. (Time expired)
It has been good to hear from the member for Kennedy and the member for Leichhardt in particular because of their first-hand experiences after Cyclone Larry. It demonstrates the great role that a local member of parliament can play, and both members have obviously done that. Some of it has been extremely personal, a lot of it has been very practical and you can also hear that both are going to be very strong advocates for their communities.
It was little Tyarne Stanley who so eloquently put it, after seeing the impact of Cyclone Larry. She said, ‘There’s fences broked; everything’s broked.’ It is hard to imagine this very beautiful part of Queensland being, as she put it, ‘broked’. But, as the two previous speakers have indicated, there is no question that this part of Australia will be restored. The great thing is that we have so many indications that many Australians will do everything they can to help. Already, as so many have said, we have seen the wonderful courage and commitment from the emergency service workers, the Defence personnel and all of the volunteers.
People have spoken about the tremendous way in which we have had so many tradespeople decide to pick up their tools and take them to Far North Queensland. In a time when we have such a serious skills shortage right around the country—there is plenty of work elsewhere in the country—these tradespeople have decided to take their livelihoods with them, to take their skills up to Far North Queensland, and be such a critical part of the massive recovery effort that is now under way.
We have seen, as the member for Kennedy has said, some power restored. Of course there is still an enormous amount of work to be done there. It was terrific to see the children going back to school, although not necessarily in their old classrooms, and that businesses are being reopened at last.
As the member for Kennedy said, it must be a real tonic for people to have Peter Cosgrove up there. When people are in distress, it is important for them to know that somebody of his standing is in charge—somebody who is now going to manage the recovery effort—and that that recovery effort is being conducted with all levels of government.
We have heard a lot from the member for Leichhardt and the member for Kennedy about the important role that local government has played, but we all recognise the important job that has been done, and I am sure will continue to be done, by both the Queensland government and the Australian government. There is no doubt that it must be a comfort if you have lost everything to see someone like Peter Cosgrove around the town with his sleeves rolled up, as he said himself, ready to get stuck in and get everybody organised.
One of the things that I wanted to do particularly today was to very strongly say that all Australians really need to dig deep and support the call of Premier Peter Beattie for the donation of cash to the disaster relief effort. As I understand it, he has set a target of about $20 million. This is money to be raised by all of us, individual Australians, out of our own pockets for this relief effort. I gather that about $8 million has been raised so far. I think it demonstrates that we can do more than that. To anyone who is listening and has the capacity to send some money up to Far North Queensland to help with the relief effort, I am sure it will be very well received.
Others have spoken about the need to get the tourist industry back on its feet. Coming from Melbourne, as I do—I know that it is beautiful in Melbourne right at the moment but it will not be that way for much longer; it will be pretty cold soon—I say to everyone in Melbourne: make sure that when you are taking your next holiday you go to North Queensland. We know that plenty of tourist areas have been very badly damaged, but they will be fixed and they will be fixed soon. What they need is for those of us from the colder areas down south to get up to North Queensland to make sure that the fabulous tourist resorts can deliver that fantastic holiday experience we know they can.
I do feel particularly for the farmers—the sugarcane farmers, the banana growers and the other crop growers. We have heard a lot in the media about the banana growers and the sugarcane farmers, but both the member for Leichhardt and the member for Kennedy have mentioned the other crop growers of macadamia nuts, avocados and all the other very specialised fruits that come from Queensland. We know that they have been very hard-hit. This means that families just have nothing to live on. Not only do they have nothing to live on now but also it is going to cost them a lot of money to rebuild their farms and their livelihoods. Anything that the federal government can do to support those people to get their farms back into operation I know will be very well received.
It has also been made very plain that many towns rely on these farmers for income, and so the local businesses in the towns are also being hard-hit and know that it is going to be tough for them to get back on their feet. Hopefully, though, we will see those businesses able to recover. As I say, I hope that those Australians who live a long way from Far North Queensland but know it for the beautiful place that it is will do everything they possibly can by donating to the relief effort and by getting up there to have their great holidays in Queensland. That way, in the most practical manner possible, we can do our little bit to help.
When Cyclone Larry, a category 5 event, pounded the North Queensland coast, it was probably the worst natural disaster in Queensland since 1918. Some have said it was the worst in Australia. I guess we will leave it to others to work out where it rates, but there is no doubt that it has really torn the heart out of the communities in Babinda, Innisfail and the surrounding areas. There were winds of up to 290 kilometres per hour. While it was going on, I rang up friends in Babinda and on the tablelands and they said that the winds were utterly unbelievable. It was like a cyclonic train outside their house, and at that time they were in the eye of the storm and waiting for the winds to come from the other direction.
I went up there last Wednesday, stopping at Babinda and then driving down to Innisfail. I saw roofs torn from homes and buildings, power poles snapped over and all of the cane lying flat—as you would be only too familiar with, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley. Whole paddocks of banana crops were cut off at about five feet. They looked like someone had gone across them with a whipper snipper and laid them over. There is a great deal of devastation. But with the level of devastation—some 60 per cent of homes in Innisfail and 80 per cent in Babinda are damaged, severely damaged or completely blown away—it is an absolute mercy that there was no loss of life. Although one gentleman apparently passed away from a heart attack in a caravan, there was no loss of life due to injury. You could see pieces of corrugated iron twisted up in the powerlines. How were people able to crawl across their yards? I met one young woman who, with her three-month-old baby, had crawled across the yard to the neighbour’s house when part of her house was blown away. It is an absolute blessing that no-one was severely injured or killed.
The residents of Innisfail, Babinda, Silkwood, Kurrimine and other areas are certainly in urgent need of our assistance. As we know, people in Kurrimine went without food for days and slept on wet mattresses. People that I met, and as we have heard from the member for Kennedy, are living with two or three families in two-bedroom units or have moved in with neighbours.
I would like to detail the assistance package announced by the Commonwealth. There are ex gratia payments to people whose family home was destroyed or uninhabitable for at least two weeks. This relief amounts to $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child. That should give a little breathing space for people to pay for alternative accommodation while perhaps repairs and clean-up are occurring at their home. There is a further $1 million to the Cyclone Larry Relief Fund. The Queensland government has matched that donation with an additional $1 million. For farmers and small businesses there is a one-off income support program equivalent to the Newstart allowance for six months. There is also a one-off grant of $10,000, which is tax free, for small and home-based businesses, including farmers and tourism operators. Farmers and small businesses will also have access to concessional loans to re-establish their enterprises. Those loans are up to $200,000 under natural disaster relief arrangements. As the Prime Minister announced today, the federal government has already made an initial advance of $40 million to Queensland to assist under these natural disaster relief arrangements.
I would like to talk about the situation on the ground. I really do acknowledge the very hard work that has been done by civil servants, by our defence personnel, Centrelink, Ergon Energy, the Red Cross, the Queensland State Emergency Service and certainly by the local member for Kennedy, Mr Katter. When I was there he was meeting people in the queues and helping people. Many of the townspeople I spoke to said that he had been the only politician to visit them. There is no doubt that with heart and soul and with energy Mr Katter is there with his people.
These terrible situations bring out the best in many good people. I would like to highlight some of the issues that we are not generally aware of which result from a catastrophe like this. For instance, when I went down the street in Innisfail there was no water, no sewerage and no power. You do not realise the ramifications of that until you are actually there. On the day I was there water was back on and people were therefore able to get water to flush down their toilets. Imagine three days without being able to flush toilets in a house with maybe three families living in it—quite a taxing situation. Lack of power has enormous ramifications. As Mr Katter, the member for Kennedy, said, people literally had no money in their pockets when the cyclone hit. Nobody could access an ATM. The banks that I visited had holes in the roof, were damaged and there were armed guards. Even if people had been able to go into the banks, because no electronic system was operating, they could not access their accounts. So there was no cash, no money.
Local shopkeepers were incredibly generous. Because there was no power, the food in the little coffee shops and hamburger shops was gradually defrosting and would have perished. So shopkeepers put on street kitchens. Many of them just emptied their refrigerators and freezers and put on a big cook-up—street kitchens. I would like to acknowledge Jeff and Gilda Baines from Jagad’s, Len and Anita Oliveri and many others who set up street kitchens and fed up to 2,000 people a day. I know that the member for Kennedy would have seen many of these good shopkeepers. Because they were losing all of their stock, they were giving it away and helping people—at enormous personal cost to themselves. They had little kids coming up to them for a glass of chocolate milk or something, people who evidently had not eaten that day.
Oliveris, Baines and the Salvos were the only three sources of food there for one day.
I acknowledge what the member for Kennedy has said: that the Baines, the Oliveris and the Salvation Army were the only source of food for a whole day. Those people need to be acknowledged in this House.
Hear, hear!
There is no doubt that the state government attempted to give people cash. There were hundreds in the queues waiting for money—$150 for an individual and $700 for a family. This is not said in a critical way but we need to learn from these situations so that, were this tragedy to occur again, we would be much better prepared. People were standing all day in the driving rain with their children; they could not leave their kids behind. There was a lady, holding a toddler’s hand and pushing a pram, who had been there since eight o’clock and it was then four in the afternoon. Those people were asked to fill out nine pages of forms. I can appreciate that there was some risk management in all of this. Plainly, the state government did not want people who were not entitled to be taking cash away from the needy, but surely it would have been better to adopt a better system, to give people cash. If taken wrongly by those who were not entitled, it should be followed up at a later date but do not make desperate, weary, hungry people stand for eight hours and then tell them, as they were told that afternoon, ‘You’re still in the queue; come back tomorrow.’ That was one of the great sources of frustration. I appreciate the good heart behind the effort to give people cash but situations like that must be streamlined so that people get what they need quickly.
I would like to acknowledge Joe Hockey, the Minister for Human Services. I rang Joe. The Centrelink people were there and were working tremendously hard for all Centrelink customers to make sure that money was put in their accounts, but no-one could access accounts. To his great credit, Mr Hockey, with others, arranged for a generator the next day for one of the local banks so that people could access their accounts and get necessary cash. I thank the minister for taking my call at very short notice and for making the necessary arrangements to overcome that lack of cash. I know this was supported by the member for Kennedy, who was there in the queue as well.
I would like to speak very briefly about businesses. I met Guido Ghidella—a very well know identity in the north—in Babinda. Some $20 million is lost in the sugar industry—about 50 per cent of the crop. As you would know yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, sugar is a pretty resilient crop and some of it will be harvested, even with the lodging that has occurred.
I would also like to acknowledge Krista and Anne Dunford who travelled down with me. Krista came down with a heap of sausages and cooked them at one of the street kitchens later in the week. I know that the member for Leichhardt and others have acknowledged good people but I think where we can we should acknowledge those who have given up days, in some cases, to assist locals.
In the few minutes I have left, I would like to talk about some of the things that need to be done. I am very pleased, as I know the member for Kennedy is, with the Prime Minister’s announcement of the fuel excise exemption on generators and other fuel usage. I think that is a very useful start. I certainly support the member for Kennedy’s call for the power to be placed underground. The state government are no doubt facing an enormous challenge in the north, but they do receive record amounts of money from the GST and it is a good opportunity to rebuild properly and ensure that such vulnerability in the power network does not exist in the future. Where infrastructure has to be rebuilt—and the rebuilding has to be done—underground power is necessary. Yes, there is an additional cost, but it is certainly worth it and will be a good investment for protecting infrastructure into the future in Queensland.
I also support the call for Newstart moneys to be supplemented such that people can remain in North Queensland—perhaps cleaning up on farms and contributing to the community effort. The reason is that many of these people are very skilled. We want to keep the skill base in the local communities; we do not want to dislocate good employees who now find themselves without a job, not through their fault, their employers’ fault or anybody else’s fault. It is just a set of tragic circumstances. Keep that skill base in the community. Do not disrupt and dislocate them. Provide that continuity of expert skills.
Also, I do not want to see the north denuded of people. That is home for many of them. We do not want to see them move to the southern capitals. Innisfail needs its workforce and will need it again. Some bridging arrangements are required to enable them to stay there. Housing—and I have been talking to the member for Kennedy about this—is going to present an incredible challenge to people in the north.
Australia is a wealthy nation. We heard the figures the other day: our wealth as a nation and per capita has doubled in the last 10 years, and that is something to be very proud of. We were proud as well of the $1 billion in Australian government aid given to the people of Indonesia after the Indian Ocean tsunami. Australians welcomed and supported that contribution. It would be quite wrong to compare the two disasters. Thankfully, there has not been a loss of life directly caused by Cyclone Larry, but it is a time to help those facing devastating loss and to be generous—not to burden them with bureaucracy or rules and regulations but to be generous and give them a helping hand to live and work in their communities and to re-establish their businesses, their livelihoods and their futures.
It is a time to support North Queensland and to look forward. There can be a very strong future up there and, if the proper infrastructure is provided, the future for North Queensland can be even stronger. I thank the federal government for what it has done, particularly for other members of parliament, including the member for Kennedy. I look forward to being part of a generous nation’s assistance to North Queenslanders.
As a Queenslander I have always regarded North Queensland and tropical North Queensland as paradise. It has been my pleasure to visit and travel around it on many occasions. But, of course, with paradise sometimes there is a downside. In tropical and subtropical Queensland, cyclones are a fact of life. People grow used to the risk of these big storms, but nothing prepares anyone—not even stoic North Queenslanders, who have been through some of the biggest storms that this country has seen—for a cyclone the size of Larry, which crossed the Queensland coast at 7.30 am last Monday, 20 March.
I welcome the contributions to the discussion today from all of the North Queensland members, who have worked very hard with all of the authorities to put in place all of the schemes and responses that are required to assist those Far North Queenslanders who have been affected. If you survey the damage to our great agricultural industries and if you take into account the damage to the lives of families—pensioners, young families and all of those people who make up this community—you can see that we have a very substantial problem on our hands. It is a problem that stretches from Mareeba in the north, to the south of Tully and west of Mount Garnet.
The people of Far North Queensland have been simply battered by the worst tropical cyclone in living memory. It packed a massive punch, with winds of up to 290 kilometres an hour that brutalised 12,500 square kilometres of forest, fertile agricultural land, state and national parks, and commercial and residential estates. Of course, we do not know the final numbers yet, but, when it comes to homes, 226 homes in Innisfail have been made uninhabitable, 3,000 applications for ex gratia payments due to houses being uninhabitable for longer than two weeks have been received and 126 homes have sustained structural damage in the Mareeba area—and it goes on. We have heard so much about it today from those who have been on the ground over the past week.
Perhaps the most insightful number expressing the extent of the damage that the people of North Queensland have experienced is that, since last Monday, the wonderful men and women assisting in the reconstruction effort in the affected areas have covered with tarpaulins the leaking roofs of 1,600 houses. I would like to pay tribute to all the work of the Queensland emergency service, the counter-disaster and rescue services, the Queensland Police Service, the Queensland Ambulance Service, the Queensland health service and all of those volunteers we have heard about today, who have used their own personal and private resources in these communities to help their fellow citizens.
There are also the Australian Defence Force personnel and all of the volunteers who have come from outside the area. I know that there are many from my electorate of Lilley in Brisbane who have simply made their way to North Queensland to help their fellow citizens. They have done it because these communities are in their hour of need. Their service to the people of Innisfail, Mareeba and other affected towns and cities is, indeed, a ray of light in what are going to be dark days in Far North Queensland. Their work, in cooperation with state and Commonwealth government agencies, has certainly done a lot to help all those affected people.
But just as a tarpaulin on the roof is only the beginning of the process of rebuilding a house, so the challenge of rebuilding the communities of Far North Queensland has only begun. One point that I would like to make today is that, while in a sense it is easy at a time like this, so close to an event like this, for everybody to consider what should be done and outline the response, it is a far tougher ‘ask’ to be engaged in the planning and delivery to make sure that in the longer term the resources are getting to those people and industries that require them. The scale of the devastation is such that these problems will not go away in two or three months or a year. It will simply take many years of work to assist all of those who have been affected in this process. So what we have on our hands is a long-term project to rebuild the social and economic fabric of one of the most remarkable regions of the world—a region that I have always regarded as being paradise, and a region that makes a marvellous economic contribution as well as a great social contribution to this country. It is going to take more money than has already been committed, more men and women than have already put up their hands to help and—hardest of all—more patience and courage from the resilient people of Far North Queensland.
But as large a task as we face together, I have every faith that we will achieve that task and return Far North Queensland to the vital role that it plays in our national story. I have that faith because I know that no level of government is underestimating the enormity of the task. We have heard from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in this parliament, from the Premier of Queensland, from local government leaders and indeed from representatives in this House that they understand that what we say today will only be words if it is not followed up with concrete actions over the next few years, not just the next few months. So local, state and federal governments are in this job for the long term. We will be there until the job is done, because it is our job to fix it all when the TV cameras have gone and all the roofs have been patched up. There will be many other challenges before us. All of the families whose employment and schooling have been dislocated and all of the pensioners who have lost their homes and may experience difficulty in rebuilding have difficult economic and social problems that are going to require a lot of creativity and flexibility the delivery of not only government but also private sector services and programs.
I would like to finish by quoting the words of my good friend and local member for much of the affected area, Warren Pitt. Warren, who is facing a very serious health challenge bravely and with great optimism, had a few words about this to say in the Queensland parliament today. In many ways I think this does sum up much of what has been said here today, particularly by the member for Kennedy, who has been tireless on the ground in the affected areas. That is not to diminish the work that has been done by other members who are here today, but the member for Kennedy is perhaps the one who is most closely affected and will continue to be a vocal member of the parliament for these people. I know he understands the people in the community and their attitudes. I think Warren Pitt does too, and I think he would agree with me that this is the sentiment—as summed up by him today—that exists in Far North Queensland:
... the one thing which doesn’t need rebuilding is the spirit of the affected communities, because that spirit stood resolute and undamaged against Cyclone Larry ...
The people of Far North Queensland certainly have the spirit. We need to provide them with the vehicles and resources to rebuild their communities, not just economically but socially. All in this House should commit today to doing that not just in the short term but in the long term and in the interests not just of the people of Far North Queensland but of the country as a whole.
While I am formally known as the member for Herbert, I am informally known as the member for Paradise, as the member for Lilley would know. A key message that I want to give to the parliament this afternoon is that North Queensland has reopened for business and that life goes on. There is certainly significant devastation in a small area of North Queensland, but Queensland is a very large state and all the areas to the north and south of the cyclone track are very much open for business. Those who have been planning trips to North Queensland—maybe for business, as a holiday or to see family—should go with confidence, knowing that they will be welcomed in North Queensland.
Also, it is good news that our wonderful and marvellous Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area has suffered very little damage and that those who want to go and have a reef experience can have that experience now. Indeed there is a kind of reverse outcome from the cyclone’s crossing the reef. While there may have been some small amount of damage to coral in a small area, one of the effects of the cyclone is that large volumes of water have been turned over, actually cooling the reef. Cooling the reef helps mitigate the coral bleaching that has been happening. Certainly the reef is open and is there for wonderful experiences.
When the cyclone was coming, it was unclear what the cyclone’s track might be. Cyclones’ movements can be notoriously erratic. The city of Townsville, my home town, was certainly prepared for it. We did what we normally do, because we are used to it. As I was in Townsville when Cyclone Althea devastated the city back in the early seventies, I know exactly what it is like to suffer a cyclone. So we prepared: we stored our water, we had plastic to keep everything dry if we lost our roof, we had food and cooking facilities. People filled up their cars with fuel and filled up their gas bottles.
But something that happened this time—and it has been referred to earlier in this debate—was the recognition of the need to have cash because the ATMs did not work. We get so used these days to working with plastic cards that when the ATMs do not work there is a real problem. I think our North Queensland community and others affected by cyclones around the country will come to the realisation that they have to add cash to the list of things that they have to do when a cyclone is bearing down on their community.
I want to pay tribute to Centrelink, particularly the Centrelink staff in Townsville but more generally the Centrelink staff in North Queensland who all moved to work together to look after the people affected by the cyclone. They were prepared to go to work when the cyclone hit. In fact, local staff went out of their way to help. In Innisfail on the afternoon of the cyclone there was a local Centrelink staffer at the office checking for damage, making arrangements for repair and making arrangements to get the office reopened as soon as possible. The next day Centrelink staff were on duty at the state government community recovery centres across the devastated area. Their local staff put Centrelink operations above their own needs and that is fantastic. Centrelink are now well regarded as being a wonderful customer service organisation, and they certainly demonstrated that in this particular natural disaster.
Indeed, staff worked with local banks to get cash into the local community, solving the problem that people were facing. Up to 60 staff contributed, backed by a range of staff across Australia in call centres and administration centres who also worked to help those affected by the cyclone. It is not widely understood that Centrelink staff from around the country were doing their bit to help the people of Innisfail and surrounding regions.
I now turn to the Defence Force. I want the parliament to understand that all three services were involved: Navy, Army and Air Force. They were adapting their war-fighting skills to support the community which supports them every other day of the year. Indeed, I am reminded that members of the 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment in Townsville were in Innisfail, but they were also in Baghdad simultaneously helping communities that could not help themselves.
ADF members from as far away as Holsworthy were working with the Navy and Army from Cairns and with 3rd Brigade soldiers from Townsville. The ADF were able to move quickly. They were into Innisfail between the cyclone crossing the coast and the floodwaters rising, cutting off the highways. They were there in a timely and appropriate fashion. They were able to supply life support services until emergency management and civil authorities could take control and manage the situation. Altogether, about 600 troops were involved, with between 300 and 350 troops on the ground every day since the cyclone passed. They have not just been in Innisfail; they have been in places such as Mareeba, Milla Milla, Atherton, Mission Beach, Babinda and Tully.
Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and let me tell the people of Australia about a 51 FNQ Reserve soldier. He worked tirelessly with his unit in Babinda. While he was working in Babinda, helping the people of Babinda, his own family’s house further south—in Silkwood, I believe—had been flattened. He was doing his duty as a serviceman, he was putting his duty as a serviceman ahead of his family, and that is very much to be commended.
All in all, the Australian Defence Force were able to contribute seven Army Black Hawk helicopters, three Army Iroquois helicopters, an Army Chinook, two Navy Seahawk helicopters, one Navy landing craft and three C130 Hercules out of Townsville. They were doing tasks like establishing water purification plants, distributing 16,000 one-man ration packs, establishing a field kitchen for supplying fresh meals for up to 700 people, distributing 4,000 tarpaulins and planning the provision of a bath unit. There was also a capability to provide up to 500 beds, a primary health care support team, environmental health officers and so on. Of course, 3CER from Townsville were there with their chainsaw team and heavy equipment clearing away the debris.
I was particularly impressed by the CH47 Chinook helicopter flying an entire electricity pylon tower from Townsville up to the Innisfail substation to ensure that that substation could be made operational and the power put back on—and I think a picture of that may have been seen around the country. It is not only Innisfail and surrounding district that have been affected; other cities and towns in North Queensland have been affected because, invariably, they have businesses supplying goods and services to the affected area. But they will come through.
I finish now with this thought that often, as we all know, a bit of good can come out of adversity, and we hope a lot of good comes out of this adversity. It will come out through rebuilding and strengthening community relationships, neighbourly relationships and rebuilding a community with new facilities. There are lots of good things that can come out of this adversity, but currently things are quite difficult, as the member for Kennedy will know. I wish the people of the devastated region well, and I commit the government to do what it can to help them in their time of need.
Debate (on motion by Mr Pearce) adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the motion relating to Cyclone Larry be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
The Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s extreme industrial relations changes, which will threaten the working and living conditions of Australian workers and their families well into the future.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
This week we start to see how John Howard has betrayed the Australians who voted him into office. The termites are now at work, slowly eating away at the foundations of living standards for working Australians; slowly undermining foundations such as decent minimum wages, penalty rates, shift loadings, overtime, redundancy pay and rights against unfair dismissal; and slowly affecting agreements, workplaces and employees one by one over the next months and years, Americanising our industrial relations and, in the process, quietly destroying the Australian way of life. This is John Howard’s war on workers. It means lower wages, less job security and no penalty rates. It is all pain for families and no economic gain for the nation, all pain for those Victorian cabinet-makers and no economic gain, all pain for average workers and no economic gain.
Bad bosses have the green light to sack workers whenever they like for just about any reason that they like. Want to sack someone today because they are about to qualify for long service leave? Kevin Andrews says, ‘Absolutely, sack them.’ Want to sack someone because they stood up for a young worker who was getting rough treatment at the hands of a supervisor? Kevin Andrews says, ‘Absolutely, sack them.’ Want to sack someone because they are hardworking and a manager thinks they might threaten his job? Kevin Andrews says, ‘Absolutely, sack them.’ Want to wipe out any obligation to give them redundancy pay? Kevin Andrews says, ‘Absolutely—just put that in your agreement and make it a condition when they get the job.’
This is John Howard’s ideology unleashed on Australian workers, where the powerful get more power while ordinary working families have their rights rubbed out altogether. We saw the Prime Minister in question time today speak on that limited area of dismissal that remains unlawful, and the obvious logical point that any one of us would make when we took a look at that was: if there were a boss who was going to sack somebody from that limited area of discrimination and who wanted to do it and nevertheless make it lawful, why on earth would you expect him to say that he had a complaint about their gender or a complaint about their colour while he did it? It is a nonsense! Of course he would not say that. He would not say, ‘I’m going to terminate you because you’re an Aboriginal,’ ‘I’m going to terminate you because you’re an Italian,’ or, ‘I’m going to terminate you because you’re a woman.’ He would make some spurious claim against that person, and because that claim would fit within the definition of ‘lawful’ that person would be out on their ear.
Let us not forget that, when we put in place the unlawful dismissal legislation a decade or so ago, before that point of time many of the states had unlawful dismissal legislation in operation. Of course, it was largely subsumed by what the Commonwealth did, and it now has been totally subsumed by the Commonwealth’s determination to obliterate any capacity for Australian workers to deal with unfair dismissals in a reasonable way. We are learning now about the impacts on the rights of working people. Telstra is banning union officials from work sites even where there are union members who want to be represented. The workers at InstallEx in Williamstown were sacked and then offered their jobs back with a pay cut of $25,000 and no job security. We are hearing law firms report that dozens of employers are seeking advice on how to get away with sacking whoever they do not like.
In the past year we have had a lot of lawyer talk from the government and very little straight talk, but behind the scenes there has been a bit of straight talking in the government from one of the Prime Minister’s closest henchmen, Senator Nick Minchin. We only know about the straight talk because Senator Minchin did not think he was being recorded or reported, so he spoke honestly—something he would never do if he thought the Australian people were listening. And what did he say? He did not pretend the government had a mandate for these extremist laws, he did not pretend that the people believed these laws were good for working families and he did not pretend that the Howard henchmen had any real faith in Kevin Andrews. In fact, he said that Australians ‘violently disagree with what we are proposing’. He confessed, ‘Poll after poll demonstrates that the Australian people do not agree at all with anything we are doing on this. We have minority support for what we are doing.’
Finally, after a year of industrial relations lawyer talk, we hear a bit of straight talk. It is a pity that we only heard about it because he did not think anyone else was listening in, but what Senator Minchin said was right: Australians violently disagree with these extremist laws. They violently disagree with losing their penalty rates, shift loadings, overtime and redundancy pay. They violently disagree with the erosion of decent minimum wages. They violently disagree with a bad boss being given the power to sack a good worker for no good reason. They violently disagree with being forced to sign individual contracts against their will. They violently disagree with this attack on the Australian value of a fair go. They violently disagree with John Howard’s ideological obsession with making Australia more like America. Yes, Senator Minchin was honest: Australians do not agree with anything this out-of-control government is doing to take away their basic rights.
Senator Minchin had other things to say in the course of those remarks that he made, because those remarks also included an apology to the people of the HR Nicholls Society, who were portrayed as the noble battlers in the minority vineyard which he supported, the people who over the years had stood foursquare against the rights of ordinary Australians in the workplace. He said, ‘I’m sorry we haven’t been able to rip away every single right in this first tranche of our activities, but don’t worry—we will get the opportunity to do that subsequently.’ Senator Minchin set the clearest possible marker down as to why it is absolutely in the interests of the ordinary Australian to make certain this government is turned out at the next election: for fear that even worse is in line for them now.
What is the best argument they try to use in this whole debate, the only argument they are reduced to, the irreducible minimum? The argument is this: whatever pain you are experiencing, there is a gain here for the economy. The truth of the matter is this: this is all pain and there is no economic gain. They say that we should all take the medicine, be quiet and wait five years while they take away the basic rights and conditions of Aussie workers. I say to the Prime Minister: just because these IR laws have left a bitter taste in the mouths of Australian people doesn’t mean these laws are a good dose of medicine. These laws will not heal our economic problems; they are going to hurt us economically, because they are not a cure for problems, they are poison—poison to basic Australian values, poison to the tradition of giving everyone a fair go, poison to the egalitarian Australian values that say we should never give one person unrestrained power to push someone else around.
If the government really wanted to move Australia forward and make Australia competitive again, they would do something to tackle the collapse in productivity. They would invest in training Australian workers instead of making Australia the only industrialised nation in the world that has cut its public investment in education in the last decade. They would tackle our crumbling infrastructure and reverse the backward slide in innovation. They would do something about getting net exports moving again and about turning around a foreign debt that is now worth more than half the value of the nation’s output and that is roaring towards $500 billion. Instead of a real agenda for productivity and growth we get an ideological war on workers, a frontal assault on the values that Australians have held dear for generations, an attack on workers to camouflage the failure of the government to deal with the burgeoning foreign debt, to deal with collapsing productivity, to deal with the stalling of innovation in Australian business and to deal with the stalling of exports in manufactured goods and services. Their excuse: let us drive our competition with China, India and the countries in the region around us on the basis of a wage competition, not a skills competition.
This is a government with the arrogance of 10 years in power, a government that thinks it can get away with anything, a government that does not believe it can ever be voted out. John Howard thinks he is right and the Australian people have got it wrong; he is just not listening. Of course he tried to tell us we had to change our mind. He spent $55 million of Australian families’ tax money to ram a slick Liberal Party ad campaign down our throats and make us believe that somehow this is good for Australia. It did not work. Australians do not trust this government to look after working families, no matter whether they stuff their ads into every letterbox, onto every magazine page and across every TV channel. So the government’s best hope is just to get us to shut up, to stop talking about these industrial relations laws.
We saw it again when they released the next wave of their extremist changes—another 593 pages of complex regulations, making up a total of 2,557 pages of regulations and explanations. This simplification made the regulations twice their previous size. They are now a maze of barely decipherable legalese that gives Kevin Andrews, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the power of a Soviet-era works minister to regulate in fine detail every aspect of Australian work arrangements. These regulations are meant to usher in the transformation of the Australian economy; they are meant to bring about John Howard’s 30-year-old dream for a right wing workplace revolution. But the government choose to release them at a time when they think they will get the least possible attention: on a Friday afternoon in the middle of the Commonwealth Games. That is belief in your product! That is a stern fight to make absolutely certain that everybody reads the regulations, that everybody looks forward to them in a welcoming sort of way! They have now realised that it does not matter what they say, the Australian people do not believe them and do not trust them to protect the rights of working families. The best they can do is get industrial relations out of the TV news bulletins and off the front pages.
The minister told us last night that we should all shut up and wait for five years before the laws live up to their promises. Ram through the regulations, get the dullest drone in the Liberal Party as your IR spokesman and hope like hell you can kill the issue off. Whenever you are asked about it, you just say, ‘Wait and see.’ First they told us to wait and see the details of the system. Then they said we had to wait and see for the legislation. Six months ago, last October, in an interview with John McKenzie on Radio Easy Mix in Cairns the Prime Minister said:
... I believe that in six months time, eight months time people will look back on this period and say what was all the fuss about?
Almost six months has passed since that interview, and they shift the goalposts again. They say, ‘No, wait for five years and then you will see what it is all about.’ Of course they claim that Labor runs a fear campaign. Let me make this clear, and I have said it all along: not everyone is going to lose out from these laws. Many highly paid employees have never relied on the industrial relations laws to set their pay rates. Things will not change for them. They will continue to do fine. For many people, while the resources boom continues, wages will keep growing. But, as soon as the commodity boom ends and our economy weakens, this law ensures that workers will be in the front line to take the brunt. Even while some employees will continue to do well, they will see things get tougher for their kids, their wives or their husbands, their nephews and their nieces, because the government never want to have a serious debate about industrial relations. In those smoky back rooms of the Howard government, Crosby Textor have been telling them the reality: Australians do not believe them. They do not trust them. They do not accept the Prime Minister’s extremist workplace agenda.
I want to give this commitment to every Australian: Labor will not forget you. We will not ignore what you think. We will listen to what Australians want and we will not let some extremist ideology drive what we do. We will fight for your standard of living and your rights every waking hour on every street corner, in every workplace and in this parliament until you get your rights back. I will rip up this law. We will rip up these laws and put in place a fair system for all Australians. We will put Australian values of fairness and decency back into our industrial laws so that every Australian has a fair go at work. We will get rid of the new Soviet style dictator who has been established in the industrial relations system, the obsessive complexity which has now doubled the size of the IR act in the same way as they doubled the size of the tax act. We will send to Siberia the motives and ideology that underpinned this legislation from the government. On this they will lose.
If there was a gold medal in the recent Commonwealth Games for overblown rhetoric then the Leader of the Opposition would have won by a mile. All we hear from the Leader of the Opposition is bluster on this issue, as on every other issue that he brings before this parliament.
It is interesting that for the last three months we have heard nothing from the Leader of the Opposition about industrial relations. In fact, in something like 100 questions in question time, up until yesterday, we had not one question on industrial relations from the Leader of the Opposition. But, on Sunday morning, the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Combet, who represents the bosses of the Labor Party, was on theInsiders program on ABC television, giving orders as to what the Labor Party in here should be doing. Mr Combet said, after complaining about the inactivity of the Labor Party around these sorts of issues:
... I want to see in coming weeks and months all the way up to the election ... everyone in the ... Labor Party concentrating on [this issue].
After 100 questions in this place with not one mention of industrial relations, yesterday we had a couple of questions, and then a couple more and then, finally, an MPI on this issue today. That is the reality of the Labor Party in this place. What we have seen in the last two days is a great contrast: what a modern, successful, labour leader represents, so far as policy is concerned, versus a labour leader who is simply a captive of the union bosses here in Australia. Yesterday, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr Blair, said, amongst other things:
... the defining division in countries ... is increasingly open or closed: open to the changing world or fearful, hunkered down, seeing the menace of it, not the possibility.
If one were to construct a set of words, a paragraph, which described the Labor Party in Australia, then they would be the words which were used by that modern, successful leader of a new labour party—a modern labour party, a progressive labour party—Mr Blair, yesterday. And, as many commentators in the media have set out today, that stands in stark contrast to the man who leads the Labor Party in Australia—a person who is not open to a changing world; a person and a party which are ‘fearful, hunkered down, seeing the menace of it, not the possibility’.
Why is that true? It is true because the rhetoric that we hear from the opposite side of this chamber this afternoon is exactly the same rhetoric that we heard 10 years ago when this government introduced the workplace relations legislation. We were told 10 years ago that the sky was going to fall in on Australia. We had the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Perth and the member for Fraser, Mr McMullan, basically saying that this would lead to a reduction in the standard of living of ordinary Australians. That is what they said 10 years ago: that the sky would fall in. But what has happened over the last 10 years is that we have seen historic levels of employment in this country. We have over 10 million Australians employed in this country today—the most Australians who have ever been employed.
I hope so.
The resurgent member for Hotham says, ‘I hope so’. I congratulate him on being back after the gutless campaign against him which would have tossed him out. It would have been the first time that a former leader of the Labor Party was tossed out.
We have seen an increase in the number of people that are employed in Australia. Over 10 million Australians are employed. Not only have we got more people employed; people’s wages have gone up. Real wages have gone up by over 16 per cent over the last decade. Yet we were told a decade ago, when we wanted to bring some further reform to industrial relations, that this was going to drive down wages, drive down employment and drive down the living conditions of Australians. The opposite has happened. More people are in work and those people in work are being paid more in real terms—as a result, partly, of those industrial relations reforms that we put in place.
To come back to Mr Blair: in 1996-97 when we were introducing these reforms there was a change of government in the UK. And what did Mr Blair say when he turned up to the Trade Union Congress as the newly elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? In relation to the pressure from the trade unions in the United Kingdom to roll back—or, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition here, to ‘rip up’—the laws which Margaret Thatcher had passed in the United Kingdom, what did the Rt Hon. Tony Blair say when he turned up to the Trade Union Congress in September 1997? He said:
We are not going back to the days of industrial warfare—strikes without ballots; mass and flying pickets and secondary action. We will keep the flexibility of the present labour market. And it may make some shiver but, in the end, it is warmer in the real world.
He went on to say to the Trade Union Congress on 9 September 1997 at Brighton:
The old ways of the Labor Party were the revolutionists, the committee rooms, the fixing and the small groups trying to run the show. That has no future.
His words could equally be applied to the Australian Labor Party today, who are in their backrooms, fixing up deals and buying and selling seats as to who is going to represent which union in this federal parliament, as if it is some matter of trade—and, of course, the member for Hotham knows all about that.
Mr Blair had the guts to stand up to the trade union movement and say, ‘The future of this country will be better off if we actually embrace these reforms and move forward.’ In stark contrast—and this is what newspaper editorials and commentators are reflecting upon today—the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, does not stand up in that way and does not have a progressive policy to move forward.
The contrast between New Labour in Great Britain—which has an unemployment rate lower than that in Australia, yet has a more deregulated labour market than we have today even after these reforms—could not be more stark. It is a contrast between a new, progressive, modern leader in Mr Blair—who was prepared to take the country forward and prepared to say, ‘I’m not going to just act out of the 100-year ideology of the union bosses who want to run the show; I am prepared to do what is in the best interests of the working men and women of Britain’—and the Leader of the Opposition in Australia, who is a captive of the Labor Party, which in turn is a captive of the unions in this country.
Why is the Labor Party in this country not prepared to embrace change? The reality is that it is because the majority of members who sit in this parliament—members of the Labor Party—are put there by the various union bosses around this country. They are not only put there; the unions paid some $50 million over the last 10 years to fund the campaign of the Labor Party here. This is not about the Labor Party supporting the men and women who work in this country; it is about supporting the union bosses who control the affairs of the Labor Party.
This MPI is about conditions for working families and families in Australia. The motion refers to ‘the working and living conditions of Australian workers and their families well into the future’. Let me take a couple of examples of working conditions for Australian families in relation to the flexibility in the system prior to yesterday and under the new Work Choices system. After this system was announced, there was an article in the Australian newspaper on Monday, 10 October 2005. It referred to a Sandra Xuereb, who is a single parent who works 25 hours a week for a food company, ‘stocking supermarket shelves with coffee, sauce, gravy, salt, herbs and spices’. The newspaper article says:
She normally works three days a week in western Sydney, but condenses this to two longer days in school holidays to spend time with her children, aged five, seven and nine. She has had the job since March last year and has rarely taken sick or personal leave because the AWA allows her to make up the hours lost when the needs of her children force her to leave work early.
So long as she completes her weekly workload, she says that she can ‘leave in the middle of the day’ and ‘do what I have to do’. She says, ‘It’s really good having that option, being a single mother.’ If this is about families in Australia, here is a family in Australia, in Western Sydney, a single mum with three kids, balancing her work and her family responsibilities. She is saying, as a real person in Western Sydney, ‘This option that I’ve got under a workplace agreement which gives me flexibility to be able to balance those work and family responsibilities is something which is highly desirable.’ It is that sort of flexibility for employees as well as employers that these changes are all about.
Let me take another example. Recently I presented the 2005 Work and Family Awards for family friendly workplaces. The winner of the award in the small business employer of the year category was Austral Tree and Stump Service of Adelaide. It also has Australian workplace agreements which contain a number of family friendly provisions. These include flexible start and finish times, flexible working days, paid time off during school holidays for employees with children, employee nominated hours of work, and the ability for employees to bank additional hours worked for paid or unpaid leave. These flexibilities are things that would not be available in the relevant award that covered that work. In the relevant award there is a rigid one size fits all system which has to apply to every workplace and every employee regardless of the particular needs of either the employee or the employer.
One of the employees at Austral who received this award for 2005 was a Mr Chris Grigg. Through his workplace agreement, Mr Grigg was able to enter into fortnightly working arrangements where he worked five days one week and two days the next. As a result of this flexibility, after he had separated from his wife, he was able to have custody of his children every second week. If it had not been for flexibility in the workplace agreement he would not have been able to retain custody for a week at a time. He would have had the opportunity to see his children only every second weekend.
An important thing about this is the outcome of having this flexibility in the workplace for this particular gentleman. He told the audience at these awards—he was quite emotional about this and quite proud of it—that, as a result of this workplace arrangement, he was able to reconcile with his wife. He reported that they were back together. I had the opportunity of talking to both of them. This was a couple who had had problems in their relationship. There were pressures around previous working relationships because of inflexibility in those relationships. Chris Grigg was able to structure an employment arrangement with his employer where he was able to have more time with and care more for his children, and that led to reconciliation in his relationship.
Will we hear stories like that from the ACTU over the coming weeks? I will die waiting to hear a story that is positive from the ACTU. This is what Chris Grigg said in his acceptance speech:
My story is testimony to the benefits of having a workplace agreement. The freedom to negotiate flexible hours has given me the opportunity to build a closer relationship with my kids.
This MPI is about the working and living conditions of Australian workers and their families. I have given just two of many examples right around this country where flexibility at the workplace has been to the distinct advantage of the employees and their families. There is a single mum in Western Sydney who is able to structure her hours so that she can look after her kids. She can be there when they go to school and pick them up after school. She can work more on one day if she needs to and less on another day. And there is this man who was able to structure his working hours so that he could have custody of his children one week out of two rather than be forced to simply have custody of his children on every second weekend. This is the sort of flexibility that employees in Australia want today. This is the sort of flexibility that this government is about trying to achieve.
And there is another benefit, and I finish on this note. Recently the Productivity Commission looked at what further economic reform in Australia would mean for Australians. They said that, if we continue this further reform, of which Work Choices is a part, then the gross average household income of Australians could be 20 per cent, or some $22,000 a year, higher than it is now. Australians would like to see an improvement of some $22,000 in their gross household income. These sorts of reforms will take us in the direction of achieving those sorts of outcomes for Australians. The reality is this: are we going to be modern, open and progressive, and are we going to move forward to sustain the economic growth of this country, or are we going to be backward, narrow and blinkered, as the Leader of the Opposition is? We have made our choice. It is a choice for the benefit of all Australians.
I wish to speak on the matter of public importance, which is:
The Government’s extreme industrial relations changes, which will threaten the working and living conditions of Australian workers and their families well into the future.
At their heart, the government’s proposals are nothing more and nothing less than an attack upon the wages, conditions and entitlements of Australian employees and Australian workers. This is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to move part of the total factor income of the economy from the wages section of the economy to the profit section of the economy. It is not rocket science; it is a straightforward public policy effort to move part of the economy from the wages section of the economy to the profit section of the economy. To do that takes the government 1,800 pages of legislation, explanatory memorandum, regulations and supplementary materials—a complicated, complex, dog’s breakfast.
No wonder the government’s soul mates, the HR Nicholls Society, stand up and say this is redolent of a Soviet style command and control economy. When Peter Reith was the Minister for Industrial Relations he used to walk around with Alsatians and balaclavas. When we thought of the current Minister for Workplace Relations, we used to think not of Alsatians and balaclavas but of opera glasses and poodles. Now we think only of Commissar Andrews, intricately involved in every detailed agreement in every workplace in the country. Why is that? Becuase the government here is not driven by good public policy or what might be good for the economy. It is driven here by politics and ideology.
The government seeks to justify its attack upon the wages and conditions and the entitlements and living standards of Australian working families by saying, ‘This is absolutely essential for our economy.’ I recall the last election campaign in 2004 where the economy was front and centre the significant issue of that campaign. Did we hear one word about these proposals during that election campaign? No. On the contrary, at the launch of the Liberal Party’s industrial relations policy in Brisbane on 28 September 2004, the Prime Minister was asked two questions. The first question was: are you proposing to introduce a single national system of industrial relations—something that the Prime Minister now says is one of the hallmarks of these changes. He said no. He was also asked whether he was proposing to reduce the so-called 20 allowable matters into a smaller group of allowable matters. He said, ‘No, they were working quite well, thanks very much.’
Another hallmark of these changes is the reduction of the 20 allowable matters to the government’s so-called five minimum standards, leaving adrift and at risk things like penalty rates, overtime, leave loadings and casual loadings. We heard nothing about these proposals in the run-up to the last election. On the contrary, the government said it was not proposing to pursue anything like this. We only heard about these proposals when the government woke up and discovered that it had all the power under the sun, that it had total control the Senate. What did it do then? It scrubbed off the old Acme Jobsback. The last time we heard the now Prime Minister, Mr Howard, saying that reforms, changes or proposals of this nature were absolutely essential to our economy was in October 1992. When you remind yourself of the Jobsback proposal, launched by the then the Liberal Party spokesperson for industrial relations, now the Prime Minister, and compare it to the so-called Work Choices changes, they are redolent of that 1992 Jobsback proposal.
This has nothing to do with the future of our economy and everything to do with the Liberal Party’s, the National Party’s and the Prime Minister’s ideological and political view. That ideological and political view is that somehow, as the Prime Minister said on the day that this legislation passed through the parliament last year, the adoption of these proposals would magically lead to an increase in employment, a reduction in unemployment, would make us more internationally competitive and would somehow magically increase or improve our international competitiveness.
Let us start with international competitiveness. We know that central to these proposals is an attack upon wages and an attack upon conditions and entitlements by the removal of things like penalty rates, overtime and shift allowances—part of the very important income for many working Australians. By removing those and removing the no disadvantage test, they are at risk. We also know the attack upon wages starts with the minimum wage. During question time, the Prime Minister said: ‘No, no, I’m not going to give a guarantee that no-one will be worse off. My guarantee is my record.’
The government’s record on the minimum wage is as follows: if the Industrial Relations Commission had agreed to the government’s submissions on the minimum wage since it came to office, those on the minimum wage would be $50 a week or $2,600 a year worse off. That is a reduction in real terms of about 1.7 per cent. That is the government’s public policy objective here: to drive down wages, starting with the driving down of the minimum wage by a reduction in real terms. That is the legislative prescription of the so-called Fair Pay Commission, which will become a low and unfair pay commission by removing the legislative requirement that the minimum wage be fair and by removing the legislative requirement that the minimum wage must have some cognisance of prevailing living standards. The government’s public policy view is that, if you reduce the minimum wage, somehow you will magically increase employment—particularly at the lower end of the scale.
If we have a cleaner on the minimum wage, about $25,000, then the government’s economic thesis and political and ideological view is that if you reduce that wage by $2,600—from $25,000 to $22,000 or $23,000—magically three things will occur: (1) we will become more internationally competitive, (2) we will somehow magically have two cleaners, and (3) somehow the cleaner will become more productive. You whack the cleaner’s wage by $2,600 and expect them to be more productive and more internationally competitive, and we will have two cleaners, not one, cleaning the same area of space. It is an economic nonsense driven by an ideological view that what we really want to do is to move part of the economy from wages to profit.
Let us deal with the question of international competitiveness. The government has this view that, if you drive wages down, we will become more internationally competitive. We saw the minister for industry, Mr Macfarlane, saying a few months ago, ‘Wouldn’t it be terrific if we could have New Zealand wages tomorrow.’ Ask someone in Western Sydney how they could live in Sydney on the back of New Zealand wages. But if you think you could be internationally competitive by having New Zealand wages tomorrow, the logical extension of that is that somehow Australians could have Indian, Indonesian and Chinese wages down the track. It is a nonsense. The only way we can continue to be prosperous and internationally competitive is by investing in the skills and education of our workforce, investing in infrastructure, investing in innovation, investing in research and development and turning ourselves back into a great trading nation. Those are the only things that will see us being internationally competitive.
When it comes to the illusory economic benefits we know a number of things. We know the Prime Minister has asserted certain things. There is no basis for any of those assertions. We know that the Treasury analysis indicated that there were no economic benefits to be gained from this—indeed, that there may even be a reduction in productivity in the short term. It is little wonder that last night we saw Commissar Andrews as the commissar of the command and control state designated by the HR Nicholls Society. Some of us remember that the articles of association of the HR Nicholls Society were drafted by the now Treasurer, Mr Costello, so they are the soul mates of the Liberal Party. Nick Minchin, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the minister for finance, turns up to his soul mates at the HR Nicholls Society and says: ‘Please, we crave and beg forgiveness for not going as far as you would want us to, but we have a secret plan—we will go further. Comrades, we are sorry we haven’t gone as far as you would like but, don’t worry, next time we will. We’ll completely knock off the commission, we’ll completely take away the minimum wage.’ It was no surprise that last night Commissar Andrews said on Lateline:
... this reform is probably going to take three to five or six years to have the economic effect.
It is a five-year Soviet economic plan! He went on to say the reform will:
... take a period of three to five or six years to have its impact economically.
These proposals are nothing more nor nothing less than an attack upon the living standards of Australian working families—an attack upon their wages and an attack upon their conditions and entitlements like penalty rates and overtime. The government’s justification for that is that somehow this will magically improve our economy. There is no sensible economic basis for that to occur. On day two of the government’s changes we see the responsible minister saying that you will not see the economic benefit of these things for five or six years—not just after the 2007 election but after the 2010 election. We will make this issue the defining issue of the next election campaign and those opposite will suffer as a consequence.
What a lazy contribution to this debate from the member for Perth. It was a speech that has been dusted off from the previous time that this exact MPI came to this House. There was nothing new in that contribution at all—same MPI, same speech. Why do we have this MPI today? There is only one reason, and that is that the ALP have been told to muscle up. They have been told, ‘Get your acts together or we’re going to review your support.’ That is the only reason why this MPI is on today.
And they are slow learners. Yesterday was a great opportunity for the Australian Labor Party to learn from a statesman of the quality of Tony Blair what the United Kingdom Labour Party has done. Why is it that the United Kingdom has in the last 10 or 15 years continued to progress in leaps and bounds? Why is it that the Australian Labor Party is in fact trying to take us back down a road of making sure that the flexibility that has been introduced over the last few years will be reversed by their tearing up of the work choices legislation?
In the stark contrast between the Leader of the Opposition and Tony Blair we have a great example of where this country could be if it were not for the negativity of the Australian Labor Party and its leader. Yet the Leader of the Opposition yesterday had the absolute gall in one of his contributions to Tony Blair’s presence to proclaim some form of synergy, some sort of bond, with Blair and the UK Labour Party. I am not sure whether he was listening to the speech, or whether members opposite were listening to the speech yesterday, but there was a very stark contrast.
Greg Combet, the Secretary of the ACTU, has challenged the ALP: ‘Muscle up, get your act together or we’re going to review your support.’ It is a $50 million tail wagging the dog. To Combet it is a dog that has strayed from home in recent years. It is a dog that needs to be trained and put in its place—$50 million worth really does allow you to make sure that you are listened to and that those in this chamber will sit up straight and all of a sudden take heed of what needs to be done.
Combet admits to not being very impressed with what has been going on in the Labor Party lately. But his solution to the strife in the ALP is to say, ‘People just have to put the interests of the Labor Party ahead of everything else.’ This is a man who in the past has admitted that the ACTU’s campaign on industrial relations is purely political. Combet and the ACTU are not interested in helping workers. In fact, Combet and the President of the ACTU, Sharan Burrows, are really seeking some war stories—they are seeking an individual who has been traumatised, who has had a member of the family who has been injured or maimed in the workplace—so that they can bring that out. We are going to start seeing these examples being trawled through. The ALP are not interested in the workers of this country. They are opposing Work Choices because they have been told by the tail that they need to start getting their acts together—and we are seeing that today, with some fairly ordinary contributions.
We also had the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, say in his contribution that our work choices legislation is Soviet style, that this is some form of socialistic communism that has been brought down. Yet this is the same leader who yesterday in his contribution when the UK leader was here called the Western Australian Premier an ‘old Trotskyite’. This is the Premier of a state with aspects of its industrial relations system now having been put into our legislation. There are aspects of the Western Australian system that we have adopted in Work Choices—in particular, the negotiation of certain entitlements and conditions. The ‘old Trotskyite’ of Western Australia is someone that the Leader of the Opposition looks up to, but at the same time he decries what we are doing through this legislation.
The member for Brand, the Leader of the Opposition, and those on the other side are embarking on a scare campaign that this country has seen take place a number of times over the years. We have seen the same Labor members stand up here and go into the public domain to utter the same words, the same doomsaying type statements. Nothing has changed. Back in 1996, when we first started our reform program—which of course was the second wave of industrial relations reforms, the first being started by Paul Keating himself—Kim Beazley said:
... the government is attacking the very basis of people’s living standards ... Attack wages and you attack families.
That was on 19 June 1996. Stephen Smith, the member for Perth, in October 1995 said:
The Howard model is quite simple. It is all about lower wages; it is about worse conditions; it is about a massive rise in industrial disputation; it is about the abolition of safety nets; and it is about pushing down or abolishing minimum standards.
We had the member for Hotham saying in February 1996:
You’ll get interest rates up and inflation up ... a recipe for economic chaos.
Chris Evans, Martin Ferguson, Senator John Faulkner, Senator Forshaw—the list goes on and on. The same people who are coming into this chamber and the other chamber saying that the sky is going to fall in, that there is going to be mass unemployment and that there is going to be mass abuse of power by employers, are the same people who were making those claims in 1995, in 1996 and in 1997.
And what has happened? What have we seen? What we have seen is a Howard government, since 1996, presiding over an economic growth which is unprecedented in this country, a Howard government that has understood that economic growth depends on keeping the reform process going so that each new wave of reform will generate a further wave of productivity increases. We are building a platform for ongoing economic growth and prosperity. We have seen during this time wage increases of 16.8 per cent, compared to 1.2 per cent under 13 years of Labor.
And the member for Perth comes into this chamber and says—as he has said a number of times now, and it is a fallacy—that if the Industrial Relations Commission had adopted the federal government’s submission we would have had lower wage increases. The problem with a lot of members of the ALP is that they have been out of the workforce for too long. They no longer understand how the industrial relations system works. They know that in order to have a claim in the Industrial Relations Commission in the past you had to have had a conflict, a disagreement. The way it has worked in the past—and I certainly do not agree with the way it has worked in the past; it is the old industrial relations club—you had to have an ambit claim and a counter ambit claim. We all know that is how it works. We have seen outrageous claims by both sides—employers and employee organisations—in the past.
But what we have seen—the facts are quite stark—is a 1.2 per cent increase in wages under 13 years of Labor and a 16.8 per cent increase in wages under the coalition government. We have seen a 27.7 per cent increase in average household income, as the Prime Minister made mention of today during question time. Significant changes have taken place. The doomsayers were proven wrong. They will be proven wrong again.
The misrepresentation that has taken place before has already started again. We know that the ALP are intending to put flyers into letterboxes around the place. They have got four examples. John, Mary, Brendan and Tanya all claim that there is no job security, that there are no penalty rates, that safety nets have been scrapped and that there is no collective bargaining. I would say to people: when you receive that brochure, make sure you cut through the claims that are made by the union movement and the ALP and test their veracity. Certainly they do not stack up. No employee can be forced to sign an AWA that removes overtime loading and penalty rates, in terms of the claim about John being disadvantaged. There are a lot of other points but time will not permit me to go through them all. All I say to people is: you have seen this campaign before and you will see it again. Test the veracity of their claims and it will be proven that the ALP cannot be believed in this situation.
We had a great leader yesterday make a great presentation to this House. Tony Blair and Kim Beazley’s approaches to IR are in stark contrast. In clear contrast to the approach of Kim Beazley and his Labor colleagues in Australia, Tony Blair, when he came into office, said right from the beginning, ‘We need to change our industrial relations system.’ (Time expired)
The discussion is concluded.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the following reports of the committee: the 69th annual report; the fourth report for 2006, on the fit-out of an extension to leased premises for IP Australia in Woden, Australian Capital Territory; and the fifth report for 2006, on the redevelopment of post 1945 conflicts galleries and the discovery room for the Australian War Memorial, Canberra.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
by leave—I present the committee’s fourth report of 2006, which addresses the fit-out of an extension to leased premises for IP Australia in Woden, Australian Capital Territory, at an estimated cost of $12.95 million. IP Australia expects that the proposed work will enhance operational efficiencies, reduce environmental impacts, improve amenities for staff and visitors and improve security arrangements.
The committee investigated all aspects of the work, paying particular attention to the impact of lease incentive arrangements on reported project costs and the proposed incorporation of a cafe and gymnasium, which had not been finalised at the time of the public hearing.
Following consultation with the Department of Finance and Administration, the committee was satisfied that the lease incentive obtained by IP Australia represents standard commercial practice and that any surplus funds would be returned to consolidated revenue. In respect of the gymnasium and cafe, it is recommended that IP Australia keep the committee informed as to the final decision regarding the inclusion of these facilities in the building extension. The committee recommends further that the project proceed at the estimated cost of $12.95 million.
The committee’s fifth report of 2006 presents findings in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the post 1945 conflicts galleries and the discovery room at the Australian War Memorial.
Hear, hear!
Indeed, the minister is quite right. It is a very important extension indeed. These galleries have typically rated low on visitor satisfaction surveys, so the proposed work aims to refurbish the displays to the world-class standard of the memorial’s other galleries. Specifically, the works will provide an additional 1,700 square metres of exhibition space and will allow for the display of iconic objects such as an Iroquois helicopter from Vietnam and the bridge of the HMAS Brisbane.
In reviewing the proposal, the committee took cognisance of:
Having satisfied itself in respect of these matters, the committee is pleased to recommend that the proposed works proceed at the estimated cost of $17.8 million.
Finally, in accordance with section 16 of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the committee’s 69th annual report. This report gives an overview of the work undertaken by the committee during the 2005 calendar year.
In addition to its 68th annual report, the committee tabled 22 reports on public works, with a total estimated value exceeding $990 million. Throughout the year, the committee conducted 46 meetings, 26 of which were public hearings.
Issues of note arising from the committee’s deliberations in 2005 included:
The committee remains concerned at the absence of a legislative framework for the referral and scrutiny of Commonwealth works delivered through Public Private Partnership arrangements. As agencies are encouraged to explore non-traditional funding options, the committee expects that the referral of such projects will become increasingly common.
The first work of this type to be examined by the committee was the Headquarters Joint Operations Command project, which presented the committee with a number of challenges. Defence needed the committee’s approval of the HJOC project before proceeding to the tender stage, so the committee was required to examine the project and costs at a conceptual level only, as the design, construction and financing details were to be developed by the successful private tenderer. Effectively, the committee was asked to approve the project before all matters relevant to cost had been determined. In order to redress this problem, the committee requested that Defence reappear to provide a further briefing on the project following the selection of the joint venture partner and recommended that the agency provide progress reports and budget updates at each stage of project completion. The committee believes that the act should be amended to establish provisions for the optimum timing of PPP referrals and any additional progress reporting requirements.
The committee’s very heavy workload was a notable feature of 2005. Members are of the opinion that the continuing increase in the number of referrals can be attributed largely to the $6 million statutory limit for referral, which has not increased since 1985. The committee notes that the current equivalent of the 1985 figure would be between $12 million and $15 million and has requested that the act be amended to reflect this increase.
In December 2005, the committee welcomed advice from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration to the effect that a review of the act had been completed and had gone to ministers for response. Members were pleased to learn that the review covered issues of concern to the committee such as:
The committee looks forward to learning the detail of the proposed changes and their expeditious implementation in 2006.
Throughout 2005, considerable pressure was placed upon the committee and its staff by agencies seeking early consideration of works on the grounds of ‘urgency’. The committee wishes to remind agencies that there is a legislative requirement for an inquiry to be conducted into any public work estimated to cost $6 million or more. Moreover, the committee cannot commit to a public hearing date until a work has been referred. It is, therefore, the responsibility of referring agencies to ensure that they have allowed sufficient time in their project schedules for the full and proper execution of the inquiry process.
The committee noted a high degree of variance in the quality of evidence submitted by referring agencies throughout 2005. The failure to supply adequate project cost information was a particular problem. In some cases, the financial information supplied was not sufficiently detailed to enable the committee to judge the true value for money of the work. In these instances, the committee was forced to request supplementary information in order to complete its deliberations, thereby delaying the scrutiny and reporting process.
On behalf of the chair and myself, I wish to express my gratitude to all of the members of the committee for their continued hard work and support throughout 2005. I would also like to thank the secretariat, Hansard and Broadcasting staff and those officers in the Department of Finance and Administration who play an integral role in facilitating references and expediency motions. I commend the reports to the House.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee’s report entitled Report 72: Treaties tabled on 29 November 2005 (2): amendments to the Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law of 31 October 1951; Universal Postal Union: Seventh Additional Protocol to the Constitution of 10 July 1964, as amended: Convention, and Final Protocol; General Regulations; annex G: settlement of disputes to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Turkey on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—Report 72 contains the findings and recommendations of the committee’s review of four of the five treaty actions which were tabled in parliament on 29 November 2005. Members may recall that the committee’s review of a prisoner transfer agreement with Hong Kong was also tabled on that date and was included in Report 71. Report 71 was subsequently tabled in parliament last month. The four treaty actions included in Report 72 relate to amendments to private international law, amendments to the Universal Postal Union, amendments to the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and a promotion and protection of investments agreement with Turkey. I will comment on all four treaties reviewed.
The proposed amendments to the Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law allow regional economic integration organisations to seek membership of the conference, change the procedure for amending the statute and provide for the equal authenticity of the statute in French and English. At present, the European Community is the only REIO seeking membership of the Hague conference. The statute is the constitution of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and these amendments represent the first changes made to the statute since it entered into force in 1945. There are currently 36 conventions that have been negotiated through the Hague conference.
The amendments to the Universal Postal Union and convention will assist in developing a more efficient and effective international postal service. The amendments to the Final Protocol to the Universal Postal Convention incorporate the reservations lodged by Australia and other Universal Postal Union members. Reservations applied to one country are applied on a reciprocal basis to other member countries. Australia’s reservations are outlined in the report.
Another treaty reviewed by the committee, the amendments to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, provides for new settlement dispute procedures to the convention. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants aims to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants. This treaty action provides for dispute settlement for the convention through arbitration, submission to the International Court of Justice and conciliation procedures. Under article 18 of the convention, parties are obliged to settle disputes through negotiation or other peaceful means. Parties may make a declaration accepting arbitration of the International Court of Justice. The convention provides that, where a party has not made a declaration or where parties to a dispute have not accepted the same means of dispute settlement, the default dispute settlement is conciliation. Australia is currently considering whether to make a declaration.
The committee also reviewed a promotion and protection of investments agreement with Turkey. This agreement will encourage and facilitate bilateral investment between Australia and Turkey. In view of the fact that Australia’s major trading partners have such agreements with Turkey, in 1999 the Australian government made an in-principle decision to negotiate an investment promotion and protection agreement with Turkey. Turkey is recognised by the International Monetary Fund as one of the highest returning markets on investment, with a relatively open and transparent investment regime. While investment between Australia and Turkey is currently small, this agreement will encourage and facilitate bilateral investment between countries, providing the potential for increased trade.
The committee heard that a number of Australian companies are currently looking at investing in Turkey over the next few years in the areas of energy, infrastructure and mining. Other Australian companies have already won tenders for development projects in Turkey, including a major investment by an Australian company in Turkey’s oil sector and other investments in the agriculture sector. Turkey’s new laws on mining and foreign investment are expected to continue to encourage foreign investment in the Turkish energy sector.
The committee also heard that Australia’s Turkish community was identified as a potential source of investment funds. However, the committee found that no formal consultation about the agreement had taken place with Australia’s Turkish community during the negotiating period. This reflects on the consultation undertaken in relation to the treaty, which the committee found had been inadequate and should have been undertaken.
In conclusion, the committee believes it is in Australia’s interest for the treaties considered in Report 72 to be ratified. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 72 contains a review of four treaties: amendments to the Hague Conference on Private International Law; amendments to the Universal Postal Union and convention; amendments to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and a promotion and protection of investments agreement with Turkey.
The amendments to the Hague Conference on Private International Law will help to improve the efficiency of and lessen costs and time delays in international private legal matters. The Hague conference works towards the progressive unification of the rules on private international law and operates in the areas of international legal cooperation and litigation; international protection of children, family law and property relations; and international commercial and finance law. Member states work to develop and produce conventions reflecting an agreed approach to an area of private international law, which may be accepted by member and nonmember countries alike.
The amendments to the Universal Postal Union and Universal Postal Convention incorporate Australia’s reservations and include the revision of postal security provisions for the exchange of information between member countries on maintaining the safe and secure transport of mail items; an outward mandatory registration service for priority and airmail letter-post items and a registration service for outbound non-priority and surface letter-post items but only to destinations for which there is no priority or airmail service; that postal administrations must establish delivery standards and targets for their inward letter-post items and parcels; that it is no longer mandatory to accept inquiries about the non-receipt of ordinary letter-post items; that senders of prohibited articles that cause damage to other postal items, postal officials or postal equipment are now liable for that damage; the establishment of a terminal dues system consisting of two subsystems; a target system applicable to industrialised countries and a transition system designed for developing countries; and the introduction of a quality of service fund designed to help developing nations improve their postal infrastructure and quality of service. The fund will ensure that countries and territories in most need of funds receive them.
The third treaty included in Report 72 amends the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The role of the convention is to ban or phase out the production and use of internationally produced persistent organic pollutants, manage waste stockpiles of pollutants in an environmentally friendly and sound way and reduce or eliminate releases of unintentionally produced pollutants. This treaty action, however, provides for dispute settlement procedures for member countries to the convention.
Finally, the fourth treaty examined by the committee is a promotion and protection of investments agreement between Australia and Turkey. The committee found that, in light of Turkey’s accession to the European Union and the modernisation of the Turkish economy, foreign direct investment in 2005-06 is expected to more than double that of the previous year, to reach $US5 billion. Turkey also recently reduced significantly its corporate tax rate from 30 to 20 per cent and partnered this with a reduction of its bureaucratic investment procedures in an effort to attract foreign investment.
The committee received evidence that Australia’s investments in Turkey, as a high returning market with a prospect of a strong economy, are likely to lead to increased export and investment opportunities for both countries. The committee also heard that investment is likely to come from a number of big business areas such as energy, infrastructure and mining—which is very important for states like Western Australia—and also from Australia’s 100,000-strong Turkish community. As the chair has already stated, the committee found, however, that the consultation process undertaken in relation to the agreement was not adequate and concluded that formal consultation with Australia’s Turkish community should have been undertaken. Despite this reservation, the committee is of the view that binding treaty action be taken.
I would again like to take this opportunity of thanking the secretariat for all their hard work and effort in preparing this report and in the public hearings. I commend the report to the House.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration.
Question agreed to.
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
I move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 27 March 2006, namely: Construction of the National Portrait Gallery.
Because of the significance of this construction, a display illustrating the full scope and design of the proposed works and their impact on the parliamentary zone is currently located outside committee room 2S3, where it shall be displayed until 5 pm on Wednesday, 29 March 2006. I encourage honourable members and senators to have a look at that display.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 2 March, on motion by Mr Dutton:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I understand that the Minister for Revenue has concluded his summing up of the bill. We will therefore proceed to a second reading vote. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2):
(1) Page 39, after Part 2 of Schedule 2 (after line 10) insert the following heading:
Part 2A - Other business related costs
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
(2) After item 50, page 39 (after line 10) insert:
50A Subsection 26-52(4)
Repeal the subsection, substitute
(4) An amount is not a bribe to a foreign public official if
(a) it is incurred for the sole or dominant purpose of expediting or securing the performance of a routine government action of a minor nature, and
(b) the value of the benefit was of a minor nature, and
(c) as soon as practicable after the loss or outgoing was incurred, the person made a record of the loss or outgoing and the record complies with subsection 70.4(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Over the past few months we have come to understand the real extent of the AWB scandal. We have learned that an Australian company, with or without the knowledge of the Howard government—that is yet to be determined by the Cole inquiry—paid money in contravention of UN sanctions. That money went to the coffers of Saddam Hussein and was no doubt used to invoke acts of terror. It is probably still being used to fund the insurgency movement in Iraq. We also learned along the way that a $300 million payment was claimed as a tax deduction. That means that ordinary Australians have unwittingly paid some $90 million as a contribution towards the AWB scheme. We do not know yet exactly how the payment was claimed—that, I hope, will be a matter for determination by the Cole commission—but we do know, as a matter of fact, that it is technically and legally possible that that deduction could have been claimed as a facilitation payment.
Labor’s amendments today seek to ensure that, in the future, that could never be the case. The amendments simply seek to align the tax act with the Criminal Code to ensure that, as the Criminal Code stipulates that the facilitation payment must be small in value, the tax act also stipulates a claim must also be small in value. Because of the existing inconsistency, we currently have the bizarre situation where a facilitation payment could be determined as an illegal bribe under the Criminal Code but still could be eligible to be a tax deduction. That is because the Criminal Code demands that facilitation payments be restricted to a limited value, whereas the tax act does not.
We cannot reverse what happened in the AWB case; we will certainly continue to pursue it, particularly to determine what the government knew and what role it played in the controversy, but we cannot change the events per se. However, we can do our best to ensure that this does not occur in the future—and that will take all sorts of efforts by government. But this is a simple, uncontroversial way of closing a very small loophole that can lead to some very big problems.
The OECD has declared that the Australian government is not meeting its commitments, its obligations, as a signatory to the international convention on bribery. These sensible and responsible amendments will assist the Australian government to meet its obligations under that international instrument. On that basis, we invite the government to support our amendments, which have been put forward in good faith. If the government sticks to its usual procedure of never accepting opposition amendments—and I am not suggesting for a moment that it would be the first government in our history since Federation not to accept opposition amendments—I invite it to take the amendments away and introduce them itself. The opposition would be more than happy under those circumstances to support the government amendments.
These amendments do not rule out tax deductibility for facilitation payments per se, even though an ethicist would probably argue that we should. Some would argue that allowing a tax deduction for so-called facilitation payments has the effect of perpetuating corrupt practices by Australians in overseas nation-states. Many would argue that that is not a responsible thing to be doing—that Australia is not acting as a responsible international citizen. However, the opposition acknowledge that facilitation payments currently are a fact of life and are required for some Australian companies to operate effectively and profitably in overseas nation-states, both to our benefit and often to the benefit of those other nations, so we accept that. We would not move to close off tax deductibility for facilitation payments without properly consulting industry and determining the extent to which Australian business would be affected.
All we are doing today is inviting the government to align the Criminal Code and the tax act to ensure that they are consistent and that the loophole does not continue to exist. (Extension of time granted) It is a loophole that allows very high payments of money to be claimed as facilitation payments. That is very clear on any close examination of the two acts that I have been talking about. We cannot allow the tax law of this country and, indeed, the Australian Taxation Office to apply one standard to the Robert Gerards and AWBs of the world and another standard to hardworking Australians and hardworking and struggling small businesses. The tax office’s aggressive approach to small business debt collection closed down about 2,000 small businesses in this country last year. I am distressed tonight to learn that perhaps it is about to do so once again.
Lance and Debbie Beckett run Callais Cleaning in my electorate. They owe the tax office a debt of around $300,000. It would only be about $145,000 if it were not for the impact of the punishing general interest charge. Admittedly, the Becketts have not been perfect in terms of their obligation to the tax office, but they have had some rough times. They have had a few problems with their accountant and the very nature of their business causes very slow payments to come, particularly from insurance companies. The Becketts are into cleaning-up operations, after natural disasters in particular. In fact, at the moment they are in Far North Queensland helping to deal with the aftermath of Cyclone Larry.
The ATO is their only debtor. The Becketts are paying the debt at a rate of $5,000 per month. They have recently secured the services of a new accountant, who believes that the former accountant made mistakes on previous tax returns. The new accountant believes that, with the lodgment of an amended assessment for the two previous tax returns, the debt could be significantly reduced. Therefore, I have asked the ATO to allow the Becketts to continue to pay the $5,000 each month until it has had an opportunity to determine the future of that tax bill.
Alas, I found out today that the tax office has not accepted my request and is calling in all of the debt owed by the Becketts. This will force them to the wall. I say that it is better to retain the 17 jobs involved and to give the Becketts an opportunity to pay that debt over a reasonable period of time—and certainly to give them an opportunity to have their debt reassessed—rather than to close them down, which will result in the ATO getting very little money at all. Their house is encumbered, and the tax office will lose a lot of money if it continues to pursue the Becketts in this way. I have made representations to the tax office per se, but I will be writing to the tax commissioner asking him to have another look at the case of Callais Cleaning, which is Cessnock based, and for the tax office to be more reasonable in its approach.
I know that the tax office is under pressure following the Vos report, which indicated that small business debts to the tax office have been spiralling upwards, but we cannot relax discipline. The ATO cannot become the lender of last resort. The worst thing we could do for small business is relax the discipline too much. That would only cause small businesses to ramp up more debts and see more of them in trouble. But I think this is a case where the ATO is being overly aggressive. I think we have seen a few of those cases of late. So again I am making a last-ditch appeal to the tax office not to pursue the Becketts in this way, not to call in all of the debt by the end of March this year, but to have a little bit of compassion and commonsense and allow the Becketts to continue. They have been trading for decades. I have known these people my whole life; they are hardworking and responsible people, and I think they are worthy of a sympathetic hearing. I commend the amendments to the House.
I will address specifically some of the issues that were raised by the member for Hunter in relation to the two amendments that he has moved to the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006. It needs to be pointed out that the government has adopted the OECD’s 1996 recommendation that member countries deny tax deductibility for bribes made to foreign public officials. This comes on top of the key strategy of making it a criminal offence to pay bribes to foreign public officials, part of the OECD’s Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, which came into force in this country on 17 December 1999.
In October of this year, Australia will respond to the OECD’s working group on bribery on how recommendations in its January 2006 report, which examined the convention’s application, have been addressed. It is important to note that the Attorney-General has carriage of the response to the OECD report. As to whether or not the law in relation to facilitation payments is aligned, the OECD report itself noted—and I put it on the record:
The ATO believes that the definition of “routine government action” under … the Income Tax Act, which is identical to the definition under … the Criminal Code, is sufficient support to restrict facilitation payments to those of a minor nature. It is the position of the ATO that due to the definition of “routine government actions” of a minor nature, as specified under the Income Tax Act, it is not possible that a payment in order to obtain such an action could be anything but “minor”.
Moreover, the ATO’s Deputy Commissioner, Serious Noncompliance indicated at the recent estimates hearings that, in practice, the income tax laws and the Criminal Code have the same requirements.
It is unfortunate that this debate on the government’s very serious attempts to provide the support that business, both small and big, needs to compete in the modern environment has been tainted by the political moves of a desperate opposition. This issue in relation to AWB has primarily been driven by Mr Rudd, the member for Griffith and shadow spokesperson on foreign affairs, in some vain attempt to put himself forward as a leadership candidate. He puts himself forward at a time during which the Leader of the Opposition has been the most ineffective in his period in public life. It is unfortunate that this debate is being used as a political option for the Labor Party. The member for Hunter should be ashamed of the tactics that the member for Griffith has put him up to. As such, the government rejects the amendments.
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Fitzgibbon’s) be agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 16 February, on motion by Mr Brough:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There are many provisions in the Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 that Labor is happy to support, such as the increase in the lower income free area for the family tax benefit part A from the current level of $33,361 to $37,500 from 1 July this year. We know that the new threshold will be significantly higher than the projected amount of $34,310 after adjustments are made for inflation. If these amendments were not put up, families would have suffered a loss in the value of the family tax benefit. We welcome the fact that this change will result in 530,000 families currently on family tax benefit part A getting up to $828 a year extra, depending on the number and ages of the children and their family income. We are also pleased that the government has finally recognised the logic of increasing the lower income free area for FTB part A—something that Labor has advocated now for many years.
There are some concerns, however, with this bill. I want to address some of those concerns now. The first is on the family tax benefit. While the government is acting to make sure that families on lower income levels are eligible to receive benefits and that benefits keep up with inflation, there is no attempt to stop people who are earning $1 million a year or more from receiving welfare benefits. I believe it is shocking that, in a country where some children are growing up without textbooks, money for school excursions or even an adequate diet, there are families on annual incomes exceeding $1 million who are receiving welfare benefits.
Let us make no mistake about this: family tax benefits are designed to be income distribution payments. They are welfare benefits. In the case of families on annual incomes over half a million dollars or $1 million, family tax benefit part B is a welfare payment paid out of the taxes of lower middle income families and singles who are struggling to afford the costs of raising children, a mortgage, the weekly petrol bill and groceries. This money is being transferred from struggling families to families who do not need the extra cash. Millionaires should not be the beneficiaries of income distribution, and under the Howard government they are.
Labor is taking the opportunity presented by this bill to end the family tax benefit part B rort which allows super rich families to claim up to $3,000 a year in obligation-free welfare from the government. We will be proposing amendments to end this outrageous welfare entitlement by introducing a family income cap for receipt of family tax benefit part B. Labor’s amendments prevent families with incomes of more than $250,000 a year from getting any family tax benefit part B from the government. It is a very generous income cap. Families with an income of over $250,000 surely do not need welfare payments.
Under the current rules, the total income of a family is not taken into account for the purposes of determining family tax benefit part B eligibility. As long as the income of the secondary earner in a family with a child or children under five years old is less than $20,951, or less than $16,316 if the child or children are over five, the family will get some family tax benefit part B. These rules enable very wealthy families to claim the benefit. Over 200 families with annual incomes of over $1 million a year have now claimed this benefit since it was introduced in 2000. These are not people who own a $1 million house. That is not our definition of millionaire. We are talking about families who earn $1 million a year. Last year alone, 70 millionaire families took advantage of this benefit for the wealthy and 2,000 families with annual incomes of over a quarter of a million dollars are receiving welfare from the government.
Labor does not believe that families earning over a quarter of a million dollars a year should be getting welfare payments from taxpayers, but we have seen consistently that the Howard government does. When challenged on this in the past, the former Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Patterson, strangely enough claimed it would be too costly to implement a means test on this payment. I think this is an extraordinary claim when it is considered how many obligations are put on people receiving welfare more generally from the government. I would like to know from the new minister whether it is still the position of the government that it is too much trouble to check how much people are earning and whether they should be entitled to such payments.
Labor’s amendments will end this absurd loophole. In doing so, the system will be brought into line with community expectations. They are reasonable expectations that the system should be fair and consistent and that payments should be targeted at families most in need and not go to those who can afford to care for their kids without this extra taxpayer assistance.
Labor will move amendments to the carers allowance. The second amendment I will be putting is to provide a discretionary power to extend backdated carers allowance claims in cases where there are genuine reasons for delayed applications. This bill has the effect of severely cutting back the period for which carers can have payments for the care of a disabled child backdated from the current 12 months to just 12 weeks. It does not take too much imagination to understand how a parent who has just given birth to a disabled child or whose child has just become disabled through an accident or misadventure would not have in their first 12 weeks of coping with this new situation the time, energy or knowledge to get down to their local Centrelink office to start filling in paperwork.
The measure being proposed is estimated to significantly reduce payments made to carers when they first apply for the allowance. The government estimates it will save between $35 million and $37 million each year. It really seems incredible to me that the government should seek to save this money directly out of the pockets of people who are caring for disabled children and relatives. It is phenomenal, considering how much money it saves every year through the efforts of carers, that the government should seek to restrict people’s access to backdated payments which they are legitimately entitled to because of their caring responsibilities. That $37 million is coming directly out of the pockets of people who are already incredibly vulnerable and hard-pressed in many cases to make ends meet. They are taking care of severely disabled Australians and it is not infrequent for carers to have an injury or a disability themselves. They are frequently not able to get to the Centrelink office because respite care is so difficult to come by. Without the help they need to get to Centrelink in the first 12 weeks, it is completely unreasonable to expect them to be running around filling in paperwork when they have a duty of care to the people they are looking after.
It is particularly shocking that the National Party have agreed to these measures, because some of the people who will be worst affected are people in the bush. It is much harder getting to Centrelink or to a Family Assistance Office if you are in an isolated or rural area. In some cases, people are travelling hundreds of kilometres to a town which has a suitable service. On top of that, getting respite care to get out of the house in order to seek the advice you need in the first place, to find out that these payments are available, is much more difficult. This of course comes on top of the emotional challenges that come with the day-to-day reality of caring for a newborn child, say, with a disability or a partner who has an acquired brain injury because of an accident.
We know, because the department admitted to Labor at estimates last year, that under current arrangements claims for ‘a high proportion of children’—that is a quote from their evidence—are backdated for 52 weeks. The department admitted last year that the proportion of claims backdated was ‘of the order of 90 per cent’. That means that, because of the stress, difficulty and complexity of caring for a newborn child with a disability, and because they have not made getting to the Centrelink office a priority with all the other things they have on their plate, 90 per cent of people who would otherwise be entitled to the 52 weeks backdated payment are going to miss out financially. It is unbelievable that a government which has $12 billion sitting in the bank should look to the pockets of carers for money in this incredibly cruel and thoughtless way. It really is beyond belief that the government should look for savings out of the pockets of some Australians who have the hardest lives—people who are caring for a child with a disability.
Labor’s amendment gives the Secretary to the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs the discretionary power to extend backdated carer allowance claims in cases where there are genuine reasons for the delayed application. Those reasons might include that the person is unable to readily access relevant services or advice just 12 weeks after their family member suffers the disability or, secondly, that the person was unaware of the carer allowance. I have heard of that situation on many occasions. When people are coping with the day-to-day reality of learning how to care for someone with special needs, the last thing they are doing is scanning the family and community services website for how they might help themselves financially.
A third reason that would be considered genuine under the amendments I am foreshadowing is that the parent underestimated the ongoing needs of their child and, perhaps months after the disabling condition arose, realised how much care would be needed. It is also worth remembering that, with a newborn baby, many disabilities are not picked up for many months. It is a gradual process of noticing that their developmental milestones are not being reached. It might be many months before a parent even considers their future—whether they will need to leave their employment and so on.
This legislation gives the secretary of the department the power to take allocated but unfilled places from out of school hours care and family day care providers. We will be moving amendments in relation to that. The justification for this new power is to allow the redistribution of places from areas of low demand to areas of high demand. If that is what this was actually going to do, people would not be so worried about it. The problem is that, at the moment, places take so very long to allocate that they will not be taken back from services that are not using them and reallocated; they will be taken back and never reallocated. There are still unallocated out of school hours care places in the system from the last budget. In December last year we were told that they numbered around 60,000. So the notion that there is a desperate need to take them back from existing services seems to be an effort to be seen to be doing something that, in fact, will have no positive effect for parents, children or child-care providers.
The child-care allocation system is extremely slow and unresponsive. Out of school hours care centres and family day carers often face a wait of up to two years to regain places that they lose under this system. We have been told many times by family day carers that it can take up to two years from when they apply for a place to when they receive that place. Nobody can run a business or a service that way. Family day care providers have to be able to prove that they have employees available to perform that care—they have to be able to show that they have someone to do the work. They cannot engage someone to do the work until they can show that person that there is a real prospect of them having a job, and they cannot prove that until they have the places allocated. We have this ridiculous catch-22 situation that sees family day care in particular chasing its tail to receive places.
With out of school hours care, from what they tell me, I think that services would be perfectly happy to give unallocated places back into a pool of places if they knew that they could dip back into that pool if the numbers changed. It is phenomenal when, for instance, you can have a service that has been approved for 50 kids and at the end of January one year they find that school numbers have grown a little more than expected and they could easily provide for 53 kids at the service. They have the staff, they have the room and they have the kids who need the space, but they need to wait till November for the next funding round to actually get those places. It is a nonsensical system.
Who will have the power to decide when to take back places and when to reallocate them? The department will have that power, and it is the same department that admits time after time, because of this government’s shocking negligence when it comes to child care, that they do not know where the shortages are. For long day care in particular, they do not have a clue where the shortages are. They tell us that time and time again and they say that it is not their responsibility to know where the shortages are. I cannot have any confidence in a system that puts the same department that takes two years to allocate the places in charge of taking them back and reallocating them. I cannot have any confidence that this will improve the efficiency of the system.
Labor senators recently asked how well prepared the department is to deal with these new powers and whether the department was convinced that it would know more about where the shortages and areas of excess were than individual child-care operators know about demand for their services. Frankly, the answers were quite alarming. The department admitted that it does not have any measures of demand at regional levels. It does not know how many places are not currently being utilised; it only has ‘some sense’ of the numbers and it has not even decided on a definition of ‘excess places’. In other words, the government has decided to propose a new power to take away child-care places from providers that have been ‘consistently unused’, but it does not know what ‘consistently unused’ means. We are being asked to allow child-care places to be forcibly removed from providers despite the fact that the government does not know where the areas of high and low demand are or how long a vacant spot needs to be vacant before the government can swoop down and take it away.
Our objections could be expressed in this way: we are worried that places removed from one service do not have to be reallocated to another service and certainly do not need to be immediately reallocated to another service. We are worried that the system for allocating and reallocating places is rigid and slow, that generally places are only allocated within advertised windows when services are invited to apply, that there have been fewer than five such windows since 2000 and that services, as I have said, often have to wait up to two years from the point of request for new places to have those places finally allocated. No-one can plan for the operation of their service in those circumstances.
Parents around the country might be without a child-care place simply because the allocation system lags behind new demand. We can have a situation where the government has actually allocated the money in the budget for out of school hours care places or family day care places, the service provider says, ‘We’re happy to take more kids, we’ve got the staff and we’ve got the space,’ parents are desperate for the service and their kids want to go but, because the cogs turn so slowly in the absurd allocation system that we have, those kids, those parents and those service providers might not be able to use those places. It is ridiculous, and to give the opportunity in those circumstances of taking these places back is actually extraordinary.
The government’s ability to accurately assess unmet need for child care is poor. It has admitted this on many occasions. In fact, it uses it as a defence. When I ask questions about unmet demand in various areas, the government is very happy to say, ‘We don’t know; we don’t keep those figures; we’re not interested in keeping those figures; we don’t see it as our job to keep those figures.’ So the notion that we should then entrust to that system a new power that can take back places when we have not worked out how we will define that they are being underutilised or unutilised and we have not defined how and when they will be reallocated fills me with dread rather than giving me any cause for confidence. Labor have said in the past that we should have a pool of places where existing service providers that have passed the relevant state licensing requirements, where they exist, and have the space and the staff should be able to operate above their quota. They should be able to dip in very quickly and get extra places so that when they find out that they need extra places in January they are not waiting till November before they can apply for those places.
I will be moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage that will have the effect of, firstly, limiting the secretary’s power to reduce the allocation of places to a service until it has been continually vacant for 12 months; secondly, reallocating the place to another service within seven days of removal; thirdly, obliging the secretary to assess applications for additional places to meet demand throughout the year; and, fourthly, requiring the government to include reporting measures on the number of places that have been taken back and reallocated.
I am pleased to speak in the parliament today on the Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006. I am very happy to support it very strongly in my capacity as the elected representative of the people of Ryan. As I say in this parliament whenever I have the opportunity to speak here, I have the great privilege of representing the people of Ryan. Having just heard the member for Sydney, the shadow minister for child care, speak on this bill, one would think that there are all kinds of things wrong with the national economy and the Howard government’s management and stewardship of it, with the Howard government not having the full confidence of the Australian people. I very strongly repudiate the shadow minister’s presentation just a few moments ago in which she certainly presented a picture of doom and gloom across the Australian economy and in the areas that she touched upon.
This economy is growing very strongly. We have tremendous figures that testify to the great policies that the Howard government has initiated. I think it is important that from time to time members of the government remind the Australian people of why in fact they have confidence in us and have voted for us on successive occasions and given us four election victories. The best thing that any government can do for its people is to provide a very strong economy, to provide strong job growth and real wages growth, because that is when families benefit. None of the stakeholders in the Australian economy—families and those sectors of the Australian economy including low socioeconomic Australians, veterans and those in need of the help of the government—benefits if the Australian economy is in reverse or struggling to compete internationally. We live within an international economy. We live in a globalised world. We have to have a strong economy that supports measures which go to help the Australian people. I want to make it very clear that the underlying principle of the government’s policies is to have a strong economy, one where jobs continue to be provided. Indeed, we have a situation where the economy is so strong and vibrant that employers are struggling to find people with skills and talent to fill vacancies.
The assistance given to middle- and low-income families by this government is certainly one of its strongest achievements. In 1996, when the Prime Minister as the then Leader of the Opposition was campaigning against the Keating government, he talked about the importance of families and about how important it would be for a coalition government in office to look after the families of Australia. I want to quote the Prime Minister when he talked about the weakness of the then Keating government and about how ‘the Keating government was forgetting Australian families because not only was the economy in tatters but the employment rate was very low and the taxation system did not recognise the cost to parents of raising their children’. I think it is very important that this is not forgotten.
Certainly, under the Keating government, there was scant relief for Australian families. I think the support they received was tied in with Mr Keating’s phrase ‘the recession we had to have’. How can that be family friendly? How can having an economy in recession, in a mess, with high unemployment and mortgage rates, be family friendly? When this government took office, its policies were focused very much on correcting the economy and that meant that the families of Australia, young people of Australia and business people of Australia could all benefit. That in turn allowed government revenue to expand, which in turn provided the social services that Australians were in need of and entitled to.
It is important enough for me to stress this very strongly. We all know—and members of the government continue to speak about it—of the country’s massive government debt. When we came to office, there was a $96 billion debt. Had government policy not been targeted at correcting that, the families of Australia would now be crippled to the back teeth by paying off the enormous debt principal, as well as the interest on that debt. The unemployment rate was almost 11 per cent—almost one million fellow Australians could not get a job. That is certainly not family-friendly policy or Australia-friendly policy.
With this bill, the Howard government not only have ensured that Australian parents have a greater opportunity for employment and lower mortgage repayments and real wage increases of 16-plus per cent but also are taking a very strong initiative to ensure that Australian families are compensated for the extra costs associated with raising a family—an initiative only made possible by prudent economic management, which delivers the budget surpluses that we have.
Ryan families will be interested in this bill because they are very much affected and concerned about how their government manages the economy in their interests and in the interests of their fellow Australians. The introduction of the family tax benefit on 1 July 2000 provided real assistance for families. Over 2.1 million families with four million children are now receiving on average $7,500 a year in family tax benefit to assist with the cost of raising their children. I want to make a comparison with the situation in 1996 when just 1.8 million families were receiving family assistance under the Keating government. The base rate of family assistance is now almost three times higher than it was under Labor: over $1,700 per child compared with less than $600 in the Keating years.
Schedule 1 of the amendment bill raises the family tax benefit A income test-free area threshold. This initiative is part of the Howard government’s 2005-06 budget commitment. It is also a key support brace for the 2005-06 budget Welfare to Work reforms. Currently, the family tax benefit A, which is a supplement payment for families with dependent children, has an income tax free area of up to $33,361 per annum. Once this amount of annual income per family is reached, the maximum family tax benefit A payment level is reduced. The income test-free area is currently linked to the consumer price index and is annually indexed. The amending legislation before the House will therefore raise the family tax benefit income test-free area from $33,361 to $37,500 per annum, to take effect from 1 July 2006. Low- and middle-income families will see a significant financial benefit from this amending legislation. Around 400,000 families will get an average $24 a fortnight boost to their family tax benefit part A payments.
The bill will also complement the government’s Welfare to Work reforms by addressing the barriers faced by families in attempting to increase their earnings from employment, while at the same time seeing decreases in government assistance. The Howard government recognises that, if it is asking family tax benefit recipients to work more, to become more self-supportive, the financial disincentives to earning more from employment should be removed as far as is possible. We want to have in place incentives that encourage as many recipients of government support as possible to go into the workforce.
The rise in the threshold also reflects the fact that, while the rate and income test limits for family tax benefit A are indexed once a year to the CPI, the average weekly earnings have been increasing at a greater rate over the period due to the strengths of the economy. So fewer people are entitled to the maximum rate because it follows that their incomes have increased.
The threshold increase represents an investment in Australian families by the government to the tune of $788-plus million over four years—in anyone’s language, no small amount of money. This increase in the threshold builds on nearly $17 billion paid in family assistance in 2003-04 and on the $22 billion in extra assistance allocated by the government in the 2004-05 budget, including an ongoing $600 per child increase in the rate of family tax benefit part A and an additional one-off $600 per child payment, as a result of the economy being very robust and very strong.
If I recollect, the shadow Treasurer said this $600 was not real money. Australians who would be receiving this were told by the current shadow Treasurer that it was just fake money, paper money, artificial money—not real money. We should certainly remind our constituents that $600 support from the government is indeed real money.
Currently recipients of family tax benefits and child-care benefits are given the option to receive their payments either in fortnightly instalments or in a lump sum at the end of the year. The amount of benefits a recipient receives is calculated according to the amount of taxable income they receive in a year. The majority of family tax benefit recipients—some 95 per cent—take their payments fortnightly during the year. That adds up to over 1.8 million Australian families receiving their benefits fortnightly.
For the purposes of determining the amount of family tax benefit a recipient receives each fortnight, the claimant is required to make an estimate of their income for the coming year. At present, estimates of income are only provided by the claimants, are often not updated from year to year and are inherently conservative because a lower estimate can of course realise a higher rate of family tax benefit or child-care benefit. Schedule 2 of the amendment bill will empower the secretary to apply an estimate based on the previous year’s actual income indexed to average weekly earnings. At an investment of $18.6 million over four years, this will see the Australian taxpayer save $115.2 million in overpayments over four years. This also means that less money will be expended in following up and compelling the payment of debt. It is important for us to make it clear that the government is very keen to ensure that those who are entitled to payments receive payments and that those who are not entitled to payments also account for that. This is taxpayers’ money, after all, and I think overpayments are most regrettable when they occur.
This amendment bill also makes a commitment to the government’s very successful child-care policy. I know that there has been a lot of talk in recent months about the government’s position on child care. Colleagues in the parliament have been vociferous on this issue and I think it is an important one. The Howard government has made its child-care policy a central element of its economic strategy, recognising that by providing flexible, high-quality and affordable child care parents are better able to balance their work and family responsibilities. In fact, the Howard government has more than doubled funding for child care since it came to office in 1996, investing over $12 billion in the last 10 years, compared to the $5 billion Labor invested during the 13 years it was in government. The Howard government has delivered a record number of child-care places—some 600,000 places in 2005-06. In 1996 there were just over 300,000 places available to Australians.
The Howard government has also recognised the increasing costs of child care in Australia. Through the introduction of the child-care benefit scheme, families are now receiving $2,000 a year on average in assistance. Since its introduction in 2000, the child-care benefit has improved the affordability of child care for low- and medium-income families to the point where it is now assisting over 690,000 families a year. Thanks to the child-care benefit, an extra 130,000 children are now accessing child care. In total, some 778,300 children today are accessing child care, which represents an increase of 21 per cent since 2000.
Of course, in government expenditure there is no limit to how much you can spend in this area, and the critical point for the government is that it must, as much as possible, get the balance right between fulfilling an important obligation to the Australian people and being responsible in its allocation and distribution of taxpayers’ money. I think at the moment it is getting the balance about right. I am certainly one member of the government party who would encourage the government to be generous in this area. It affects families very directly, and whatever the budget in May can produce that will support increased child care for our fellow Australians, where it is appropriate, I would certainly welcome it very warmly. We all know that the new 30 per cent child-care tax rebate provides eligible families extra assistance of up to $4,000 a year for out-of-pocket child-care expenses. That is a very important policy, and maybe that can be tinkered with a little bit to make it more parent friendly, but as a general position I certainly support that 30 per cent child-care tax rebate.
Schedules 4 and 5 of the amendment bill will alter the child-care benefit. Schedule 4 will make it easier to recover debts relating to the overpayment of the child-care benefit by allowing the government to tap into reconciliation top-up payments and tax refunds to clear family assistance debts. This gives the government the same power in relation to debt recovery for overpayment of the child-care benefit that it already holds for the recovery of debt in relation to the overpayment of the family tax benefit. For an investment of only $4.7 million in administration costs over four years, it is estimated that this amendment will reduce debt to the tune of $47.1 million over four years.
Once again, the Howard government is ensuring that, despite massive expenditure on programs such as the child-care benefit scheme, every cent of taxpayers’ money is maximised. We all know at the end of the day that this is the money of the people of Australia, and the government of the day—of whichever political party—has an abiding interest in and responsibility for being conscientious and diligent in its allocation of resources. I think it is one of the primary reasons why the Keating government was thrown out decisively by the Australian people. The people came to realise that, quite frankly, the Keating government had lost the plot in its capacity to responsibly manage the national economy. Again I make the point, which I think is really a no-brainer: unless your budget is strong, unless you have a strong, growing economy and unless the government is able to be in receipt of revenues, there is no money to provide for child-care places, there is no money to provide for hospital services and there is no money to provide for all the important services which Australians, who are entitled to these benefits, are able to use.
This bill will also make important changes to the rules for the backdating of the carers allowance. The carers allowance is provided to a person who is caring for a child or an adult at home. The supplementary payment is tax free and income and asset test free. There are two types of carers payment: CA (caring for a child) and CA (caring for an adult). Currently the commencement date for payment of the carers allowance for a child can be backdated up to 52 weeks prior to a claim. The commencement date for payment of the carers allowance for caring for an adult can likewise be backdated, but only for up to 26 weeks.
The Howard government have a very strong commitment to the carers of Australia. I know of many residents of the Ryan electorate who are caring for adults and for children. I praise them very generously for their fortitude and generosity and for the character that they show in performing this difficult task. I commend the bill very strongly. It is another example of where the Howard government are in the business of providing legislation to the parliament that is in the national interest, and we will continue to do so. If we were to cease doing that, we would lose the confidence of the Australian people. I know that both parties in the coalition govern with the criterion of the national interest at heart. (Time expired)
The Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 contains a number of provisions that Labor strongly supports. One that I want to speak to at the outset is the increase, from the middle of this year, of the lower income threshold for family tax benefit part A from the current level of $33,361 to $37,500. The benefit of that measure is that it will provide more incentive for mothers in particular to return to work after having a baby. That is an incredibly important incentive for our nation. I do not of course believe in forcing or cajoling mothers to return to work after having a baby. It is absolutely up to a mother and a father to make a decision as to the appropriate time for a mother to return to work if that is what she wants to do. If she does not, that too is absolutely her right. But we should not be putting obstacles in the way of such a decision. Currently, there are quite a few obstacles in the way of women wishing to return to work after having a baby, to the point where, in many cases, it just does not make much financial sense at all.
One of those obstacles is obviously the withdrawal of family tax benefit part A as a mother starts earning income in the marketplace. Another obstacle is income tax payable. A third obstacle, in many instances, is the high cost of child care. Travel costs and work costs are a fourth obstacle. There is an array of obstacles along the path to that decision and, as a consequence, many mothers decide that it is just not worth returning to work, even though they would quite like to do so. By increasing the income-free threshold for family tax benefit part A, this legislation helps reduce the size of one of those obstacles. On that basis, Labor is happy to support it.
However, there is another dimension to the family payment system with which Labor is unhappy—that is, the operation of family tax benefit part B insofar as high-income earning families are concerned. As a consequence of that concern, which I will outline in a moment, Labor is moving an amendment to prevent families with incomes of more than $250,000 a year from getting family tax benefit part B from the government, because we just do not see the argument for millionaire couples to receive that benefit. I have raised this matter on a number of occasions, including on the Today Tonight program, in this parliament and in opinion pieces. Each time, the Prime Minister seeks to fit Labor up with an argument that, by not supporting family tax benefit payments to millionaire couples, Labor therefore must not be supportive of the family payments system. That is a ludicrous proposition—one that you would expect from the Prime Minister, because making family tax benefit part B available to high-income earners, including millionaire couples, is the Prime Minister’s very own pet piece of social engineering. He wants to pay wealthy mothers to stay at home from work but he wants to punish poor single mothers.
Years after consideration of the McClure report, late last year the government came up with the most appalling piece of public policy in relation to single mothers. The story is that, from the middle of this year, single mothers whose youngest child turns eight will be forced from the sole parent pension onto Newstart, the unemployment benefit. That means a drop of $29 a week. In addition to that, the very income-free area about which we are speaking in relation to family tax benefits is lower for Newstart allowance than it is for the sole parent pension. Therefore, there is a disincentive effect. Moreover, the taper—that is, the rate at which Newstart is phased out per dollar of income earned—is more severe than it is in relation to the sole parent pension. Disgracefully, the incentive for sole parents to undertake further education and training is weaker under Newstart than it is under the sole parent pension.
Put all those together and you get this amazing consequence: a parent, a single mother, who is forced onto the Newstart allowance will be activity tested. If she does not meet the activity tests she can be breached. The proposition that is put to single mothers in those circumstances is that, after taking account of the loss of Newstart allowance, tax paid, the cost of child care and travel and work costs, they are expected to work for as little as $2 an hour.
I know that, with the government’s industrial relations system, that is where it would like to take much of the Australian workforce but that is exactly where it is taking single mothers from 1 July this year. So, while John Howard is saying to mothers in millionaire families that he will pay them welfare to stay at home, he is requiring poor, single mothers to work for as little as $2 an hour. Such is John Howard’s view of Australia, such is his experiment with social engineering. He thinks it is fair for millionaire couples to receive family payments while poor, single mothers are forced to work for as little as $2 an hour.
Any single mother confronting that reality surely would strongly entertain this possibility: that in being moved, when her youngest child turns eight, from a higher benefit—the sole parent pension—to a lower benefit—the Newstart allowance—she would get a miserable return from working but she could easily get back onto the sole parent pension by having a baby. So John Howard’s social engineering is creating very strong incentives for poor, single mothers to have more children. This is because if a single mother had another baby she would get eight more years on the higher sole parent pension and a more attractive set of arrangements in relation to education. And, on top of that, she would get a baby bonus, which is now $4,000. Here is John Howard’s great social experiment: to have wealthy, single mothers stay home and receive welfare and to put poor, single mothers in a situation where they have little choice but to have another baby in order to avoid his trap—of forcing them onto the Newstart allowance and then have them suffer the consequences of working for as little as $2 an hour.
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see why Labor is pretty upset about this and you can see why all fair-minded Australians would be pretty upset about it. Labor will be developing and proposing alternative arrangements for single mothers, alternative arrangements to the brutal regime that is being put in place for them from 1 July this year. In parliament today we are proposing an alternative arrangement for couples on millionaire incomes who still receive those welfare payments. That alternative arrangement, proposed here tonight, is that those couples with family incomes of more than $250,000 would not get family tax benefit part B.
When I raised this matter some months ago, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet prepared a briefing note for the Prime Minister. How do I know that? I applied, under freedom of information legislation, for any documents related to reform proposals that I had made. The briefing note was a note from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister for question time, to say to the Prime Minister, ‘Here’s how you can take this Emerson to task for daring to suggest that wealthy mothers should not receive welfare.’ What is the motivation of a department to provide such advice, other than to please the Prime Minister because they know that this is a policy that is dear to the Prime Minister’s heart? In pleasing the Prime Minister, they presented a briefing note to say, ‘These are some of the consequences of Emerson’s proposal,’ and, in the course of preparing that briefing note, they wrote down the savings from family income testing family tax benefit part B from $125,000, and the department said, ‘It only comes to $100 million.’ Only $100 million! That is a sum hardly worth worrying about from the point of view of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s department. A trifling $100 million is going to wealthy couples, when kids in poor schools in Australia—government and non-government—are striving for a decent education but cannot get the resources to allow them the same opportunity in life that their better-off peers take as a birthright. This department and the Prime Minister are saying, ‘Why bother with $100 million that could be spent towards the great task of ensuring that every young person has a flying start in life.’ Where are this Prime Minister’s priorities?
The truth of the matter is that this Prime Minister, in 10 years, has created a welfare state that is out of control—much of it because he has directed more and more cash payments to very wealthy Australians. How else do we explain that more than 20 per cent of working age Australians now receive some form of income support, at a time when welfare dependency is at a 30-year low? The government points out that unemployment is at a 30-year low level and therefore welfare dependency should be at a 30-year low level. But 20 per cent of working age Australians receive some form of income support. Compare that 20 per cent with only 15 per cent at the end of the 1980s and just four per cent in 1969. The fact is that almost 90 per cent of families with dependent children receive taxpayer funded family payments.
I will go on. Social security payments now contribute more than 14 per cent of household disposable income under the Howard government compared with just six per cent in the last year of the Whitlam government. We hear the Liberals and Nationals say what a socialist government the Whitlam government was—what a big spending, free spending government the Whitlam government was and how it was into welfare up to its ears. Yet under the Whitlam government social security payments contributed just six per cent of household disposable income, and the figure is now 14 per cent.
While poor single mothers are required to go out and work for as little as $2 an hour, how do we justify giving family payments to millionaire couples so long as the mother agrees to stay at home? And why does the government provide family payments for working couples who earn up to $145,000 a year? I know what the Prime Minister will say when I utter these words. He will say, ‘Oh, that is just further evidence that Labor is against the family payment system.’ Wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker—wrong. The family payment system was originally designed to redistribute income to those families most in need and also to recognise the extra costs of raising children. Labor introduced a needs based family payment system. A family payment system has a vital role to play in redistributing income. In fact, it has been successful in its stated objectives—redistributing income from the better off to the less well off—because three-quarters of payments are received by the bottom 40 per cent of households.
We support that. But as the coalition government has extended the family payment system right through middle Australia and on to the very wealthy, the system has become less fair. Lower income earners are receiving a diminishing share of family payments. They certainly did in the period between the mid-1990s and the early 2000s. We know from statistics provided through the Senate estimates process and the good work of Senator Chris Evans that more than 38,000 families earning above $100,000 a year receive family payments for stay-at-home mothers. The government has deliberately moved the family payment system away from the redistributive role that was instigated by Labor and is converting it into a machine that redistributes income from poorer taxpayers without children to well-off taxpayers with children, including millionaire couples.
Let me look at the broader picture of welfare spending. In just 10 years the Howard government has increased real welfare spending by half. It took the best part of 100 years for welfare spending to get to a particular level and it took the Howard government just 10 years to increase that welfare spending by half—and, as I have said, this at a time when welfare dependency should have been declining, and has been declining, with very substantial reductions in the unemployment rate.
Welfare spending now exceeds nine per cent of gross domestic product. If federal welfare spending were the same share of gross domestic product as in the last year of the Hawke government, it would be $16 billion lower in real terms. But the government continues to expand its incentive-crushing income tax system to fund these relentless increases in welfare payments. I have had a look at what will happen if the government’s addiction to welfare spending is allowed to go unchecked. Based on recent growth rates in welfare spending and those contained in the forward estimates, within a decade taxpayers will be called to pay—just wait for it—an extra $27 billion for the welfare state, for this monster that John Frankenstein Howard has created. And that is an extra $27 billion in today’s dollars, not in the dollars of the day in 10 years time.
Here we are at the end of a big productivity surge, a record breaking decade of productivity growth built on the reform program initiated by the previous Labor government and extended in some places by the coalition. But from the middle of 2004 productivity growth did not just slip back to its historical growth rate from that record level: it slipped into reverse gear and it has been stuck there ever since. Today’s productivity growth is tomorrow’s prosperity. That reality should dawn on us. If today’s productivity growth is negative, what does that say about tomorrow’s prosperity?
Australia might have been able to afford this explosion in the welfare state when productivity growth was so strong and when our favourable mineral prices and the low cost of manufactured imports meant that we were getting an injection of $46 billion a year in national income but, when that is all over, the welfare state will come crashing down. And it will not be the wealthy who suffer—it will be the poor—if a coalition government happens to be in power, because they would ensure that they protect the wealthy at the expense of the poor. (Time expired)
I remind the member for Rankin that in future he should refer to members by their correct title or the name of their seat.
I support Labor’s amendments to the Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006, amendments to be moved later this evening, because it is high time the government stopped welfare to millionaires. There will always be a debate about the appropriate tax mix—the mix between tax and welfare. The government will always be required to manage the competing tensions between tax reform and its social obligations to support those in the community who need it most. Sadly, this debate is a debate that the government is committed to not having. Sure, tax reform is very topical in the government ranks, but there seems to be very little interest from members opposite in examining the interaction between tax and social security systems and addressing some of the crippling effective marginal tax rates currently enforced on so many within our community.
The opposition has shown it is willing to consider the interaction between the tax and welfare systems, because this is the only fair way to put incentives back into our system. I welcome a number of the changes we have before us today, because they will directly benefit constituents in my area. Werriwa is not one of the wealthiest electorates in this country, not by any measure. Based on the income statistics of the 2001-02 financial year, 97 per cent of income earners in my electorate earned less than $78,000, while nearly half of them earned less than $31,200. They are simply the facts. It is for this reason I am compelled to support changes to the arrangements of family tax benefit A, changes which act to raise the current income threshold and which will result in payment increases of up to $828 a year for more than half a million families currently on family tax benefit A payments.
There is absolutely no doubt there will be some winners in my electorate as a result of this legislation. But, disappointingly, I note that these families—families that are below the income threshold, including those families on income support payments—will not see any increase in their family tax benefits. In fact, many of them are likely to see a decrease in their payments in the not too distant future, as this government implements its Welfare to Work reforms.
I have no doubt that families who are experiencing financial pressures will welcome any assistance they can get. Many families are surviving on income earned from overtime, for instance. Quite clearly, for these families income from overtime is the difference between being able to meet the mortgage repayments, feed their kids and generally go about their day-to-day lives and not being able to. The families who are surviving on overtime payments are also those families living in fear that this is likely to be the first thing taken off them when they are forced to negotiate their new individual contracts that this government, courtesy of its Work Choices legislation, will have indirectly forced on them.
At the outset, I stated that I was happy to support Labor’s amendments to this bill because it is about time millionaire families stopped receiving government handouts. In the same way that the tax take of this government continues to grow, sadly so does its position with respect to being a welfare state. It is not a welfare state that supports those in most need; it is a welfare state that continues to hand out money. As the previous speaker, the member for Rankin, pointed out, how did we get to the point where the government’s spending on social security has increased by 50 per cent in real terms over the past decade? How is it that we find the situation where more than 20 per cent of working age Australians are receiving some form of welfare support when unemployment is at the lowest it has been in decades?
Recently released statistics show that there were 76 families earning more than $1 million a year receiving family tax benefit B payments. In addition, there are more than 38,000 families with incomes of more than $100,000 receiving the payment. There has to be something wrong with the system when people earn over $1 million a year and yet are receiving welfare payments. It is for this reason that I consider the amendments proposed by the opposition to be reasonable when it comes to addressing the issue of family tax benefit B. The proposition to place an income cap on family tax benefit B would not be considered unreasonable by the vast majority of people, and, quite frankly, it would save money. The introduction of Labor’s proposal to income-cap family tax benefit B would save in the order of $7.5 million annually. Labor’s proposal regarding family tax benefit B not only commences with the process of restoring some equity to the social security system but also is fiscally sound. I am sure the amendments will not be supported by government members, and I will be interested to hear their views on this.
Amongst other concerns I have about the distorted shape of the government’s welfare state is the chasm that is now being opened between families and childless couples. This chasm goes to the heart of the government’s methodology when it comes to using tax and welfare systems to support particular groups in our society at the expense of others. I do not stand here today to argue that all social security should be removed from families, in the same way I do not suggest that social security should be removed from single people and childless couples. I would just like to point out that there is a disparity in the system as it currently stands.
Recently released research about the comparative position of families and childless couples quite frankly indicated a number of things. For instance, it is worth while noting it reported that a single-income family that were earning $50,000 a year with two children under the age of 13 received $2,374 more in benefits than they contributed through the taxation system. That is right; the Australian government actually paid them. They did not have to pay tax; they were paid by the Australian government an additional $2,374 over and above any tax that was paid.
I do not deny that families need help—families are in financial distress. As we all know, an income of around the $100,000 mark these days in any capital city or outer-metropolitan area is not regarded as an excessive income. There are a great many families, particularly in electorates like mine, who are suffering from financial stress. In many of the suburbs in my electorate, families have both parents working in order to keep their heads above water, but still they are suffering from financial distress. Part of the reason is obviously the increase in housing prices, but most of the reason stems from the rapid decrease in housing affordability, something that this government has shown repeatedly that it is unwilling to do anything to address.
At the last election the government sold the idea that they were the only ones who could manage the economy and keep interest rates low. As part of their re-election strategy, that was the position that they put out to the electorate at large in 2004. As part of their re-election strategy, you will recall, they contrasted the 17 per cent interest rates experienced under the Keating government, when the interest rates climbed during that period, with current interest rates. Naturally, the government did not seek to present the reasons as to why interest rates were so low nor did they present any information on relative housing affordability.
Recently, I read that the repayment burden on households is higher under this government than at any time under the Hawke and Keating governments. Even at the peak of interest rates, households experienced a lower debt repayment burden than they are currently experiencing under this government. At its peak, that debt burden, that share of household income devoted to interest repayments, was 8.9 per cent under the Keating government. You will be interested to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it currently stands at 9.8 per cent. This is the reason that families are struggling so much: now more of their income is dedicated to debt repayment, even though nominal interest rates are significantly lower.
The situation exists where so many are suffering financial stress, but among those receiving financial benefit and relief in the form of social security payments are those who need it least. This government has presided over a stunning increase in middle-income welfare by extending welfare to high-income earners, at the expense of single parents and the disabled, through its system of child-care benefits.
Raising the issue of child-care benefits brings me to the amendments proposed to the administration of child care. Child care is of critical importance to parents in my electorate of Werriwa because, as I mentioned earlier, in order to have some form of financial security ordinarily you will find that both parents need to work. That is the same in most areas of outer-metropolitan Sydney, and I presume the same would be the case in any other capital city. But, if both parents need to work, someone needs to look after the kids.
One of the changes before us gives the departmental secretary the power to allocate unfilled places of a child-care provider on the basis that this will allow the redistribution of places from areas of low demand to areas of high demand. Ordinarily, I would say that that sounds like a great thing, something that I would probably rush to lend my support to. I would imagine that any member concerned about child care could not do anything but support that notion. But, as always with the approach of this government, you do have to have some caution because you tend to find that the devil is in the detail.
One possible problem with this change is that, once places are removed from one service, they do not have to be reallocated to another. There is a real and distinct possibility that the change could actually exacerbate the child-care shortage. With the stroke of a pen, a child-care place could simply disappear. As I understand it, the process of reallocating places is a slow and rigid one and places are generally only reallocated in advertised windows, which I also understand have only occurred five times since 2000. I also understand that services wait up to two years from the point of their initial request for new places to be allocated to them. This will be cold comfort for anyone in a high-demand area waiting for the provision of child-care services.
One of the amendments proposed by the opposition would limit the secretary’s power to reduce the allocation of places to a service—in this case, only if the place has been continually vacant for a period of 12 months—and we propose that the places would be required to be reallocated within seven days of their removal. That in itself would require the department to actually plan and not simply remove a position and wait some time before its reallocation. In other words, if a place were taken away from an area of low demand, it would be known in advance and would be reallocated to an area of high demand to satisfy that need within seven days. This is yet another reasonable amendment that the opposition has put forward, in my opinion, but I do suspect again that it will not be supported by the government.
I would also like to offer my strong support for Labor’s amendment to require annual reporting to the parliament on the number and location of services suffering an involuntary removal of places; of services that have been reallocated those places; and of services seeking more places, which would provide some indication of unmet demand. Those are figures that I would have thought anyone in this place would be very interested in. Again, it is not an unreasonable amendment and it is one which I think ought to be supported in this place.
Helping families is one thing but helping families who earn multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars—or, worse, millions of dollars—each year is another thing altogether. Labor has proposed some fair and reasonable amendments to this bill. It has proposed amendments that would bring some sense back into the system of social security, amendments that would act to curb the growth of the welfare state that this government has presided over. Members who feel that placing an income cap on family tax benefit B is unreasonable, while continuing to support the cutting of payments to the most vulnerable in society, quite frankly are symptomatic of a government who have their priorities misplaced. In my opinion, what is occurring in welfare to work is completely wrong.
I would welcome any member who does not support the sensible amendments being proposed here to come and visit my electorate—to visit suburbs like Minto, Macquarie Fields and Miller, suburbs with high degrees of welfare dependency—and explain to them how it is better for everyone to have people earning millions of dollars and receiving welfare while their payments are being cut. I would then welcome the opportunity to take them to visit suburbs like Prestons, Austral and West Hoxton and have them explain to the people there why they would support people with incomes of more than $250,000 per year receiving social security payments while people in those areas are forced to work two jobs to struggle to keep bread on the table for their families, relying on overtime to meet their mortgage repayments and day-to-day living costs.
I have always found it quite amazing that this government—the government who makes the claim that it is the greatest budgetary manager of all time—is the same government who collects record levels of tax and who spends record levels on social security. As the Prime Minister has previously been advised, this government could save $100 million a year by simply scrapping payments to stay-at-home mothers if their family income is more than $125,000. In 2003-04 there were nearly 13,000 families living in our 10 wealthiest postcodes and receiving family support payments.
This is really a crossroads for this government. Either this government is happy to go along the path of maintaining these welfare state provisions, or, alternatively, it starts looking at the real and very much needed tax reform provisions that are required in a developing society. This is not about simply slashing and burning when it comes to welfare; this is about a proper redistribution of the tax burden with a view to ensuring that people who need assistance most receive it and that those who do not need assistance contribute properly to our society. (Time expired)
The Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 does a number of things, all of which Labor is supporting. The legislation extends the upper threshold for accessibility to family tax benefits to $37,500 from the current upper limit, for the maximum, of $33,361. It changes the arrangements with respect to the backdating of carer allowance for particular recipients. It provides the Secretary of the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs with the power to change the allocation of child-care places to move places from areas of relatively low or unexpectedly low demand to areas of high demand. Finally, it allows for the offsetting of debts with respect to child-care benefit against tax returns or refunds paid to individual taxpayers.
Labor broadly supports the legislation but is going to move a number of amendments relating to some of the issues that are traversed by this piece of legislation. In particular, Labor will be moving an amendment to provide for the withdrawal of the entitlement to family tax benefit B that currently applies to families in receipt of incomes of $250,000 per annum or greater, which is an issue that has been dealt with in some detail by some of the previous speakers from the opposition.
I want to address a broader question that the legislation indirectly raises, and that is the ever-growing proliferation of transfer payments, both broad income support payments and more specific and targeted payments from the Commonwealth budget. It is something that has been contributed to by governments from both sides of politics over the years, but it is a particularly strong trend under the Howard government. That raises a number of very important issues which are ripe for wider public debate and really have not been addressed. When we consider the various issues that are raised by these things, there are a number of matters that we need to properly consider in forming a view about the future of income assistance for people in Australia and about the future of specific payments that are provided with particular tags to families and to individuals to enable them to better access particular kinds of services.
We need to consider effective marginal tax rates that result as a collision between the family payments system and the tax system. Labor has sought to address this for some years, with proposals for tax credits as far back as the 1998 election. This is still a major problem, and the tinkering with the structures that we have seen on occasions has not alleviated it. Very large numbers of Australians face very strong disincentives to re-enter the workforce or to increase their contribution to the production process, as it means they would face a very high effective marginal tax rate for the additional dollars they earn, because of the intersection between family payments and the ordinary marginal tax rates.
The operation of the family tax benefits system has resulted in a chronic problem of overpayments. People have been forced to estimate their future incomes, often in circumstances where it is not necessarily easy for them to do so. They have then been lumbered with an unexpected debt, the repayment of which, in many circumstances, has been very difficult for them. The family tax benefit system has become a very cumbersome administrative burden for the Commonwealth and, inevitably, an additional cost to the taxpayer.
We have an extraordinary proliferation of income tests and assets tests, with sometimes conflicting and inconsistent approaches taken to different entitlements. Family tax benefit B is an entitlement that has been focused on by the Labor Party in this debate. There are some families who earn $1 million a year but are still entitled to receive this payment, even though the government is busily engaged in trying to reduce the entitlements of or remove entitlements from many people on very low incomes.
The role of government to smooth fluctuations for citizens and families over the life cycle was relatively limited 50 years ago, but it has now become central. Once there was not much more than child endowment, the age pension and some very specific social security payments, such as unemployment benefits, that inevitably applied to only a relatively small number of people. In Australia we now have an extraordinary array of schemes and arrangements that are designed to limit the economic effects on families and individuals of child rearing, studying and ageing. Child-care rebates, the baby bonus, family tax benefits, the child support scheme, HECS, Medicare, the private health insurance rebate, occupational superannuation, home and community care, aged care subsidies, the parenting payment and an infinite array of smaller and more targeted programs reduce or inhibit the impact of economic fluctuations derived from changing circumstances over the life cycle.
Clearly, families inevitably have economic challenges when raising children. There is the same challenge for low-income families, middle-income families and, to some degree, even people who are reasonably well off. Inevitably, having children and raising them impact on the family budget.
Similarly, study has a major impact on the costs that families and individuals have to bear. In the world of 50 years ago, the overwhelming majority of people left school at the age of 14, 15, 16 or thereabouts and went into the workforce. For women it was for a relatively short period of time before they married and, typically, they ceased to be in the paid workforce for at least some time afterwards. Now it is common for study to be the dominant activity for people well into their 20s. Therefore, the economic burden of sustaining them—borne by the individual or by their families—is much greater than it was many years ago.
Similarly, older people have a life expectancy that is much greater than it was 50 years ago. The burden on the community, the costs of retirement incomes and maintaining health services, which typically are accessed by older people at a much greater frequency, have grown in relative terms.
Hence, the underlying causes of the massive proliferation of entitlements, government payments, transfer payments and income support payments are absolutely real. Many of the things that have been put in place to deal with these phenomena have been initiated by Labor governments, and we are proud of them. However, we do need to acknowledge that gradually a very messy mixture of entitlements and payments has been created in this country, often driven—in the case of the Howard government—by the need to present electoral goodies at election time. This has created a conflicting, contradictory and ultimately inefficient morass of payments. Although these payments have a legitimate underlying purpose, we need to ask whether we can do this better, more efficiently and more equitably.
Since 1969-70, the proportion of the federal budget devoted to social welfare and health insurance has risen from under 20 per cent to over 50 per cent. The proportion of the overall Commonwealth budget that is committed to payments to families and individuals to counteract the impacts of these changes on family finances over the life cycle has risen dramatically. It is now the majority of the federal budget. These days the government is not just an item in the family budget; it is running it. This ever more complex financial relationship between families and the state raises significant issues in respect of individual responsibility and public sector efficiency. Most of us are living much longer. We require more skills to participate in the production process and women in particular are participating in formal employment much more.
The complex mess that governments have created to respond to these pressures is crying out for serious reform. One example of this is being debated this evening. In 2003-04 family tax benefit B was paid to 38,500 families who earned over $100,000 per annum and 76 families who earned over $1 million per annum. According to research by the Parliamentary Library, by 2006-07 single-income families who earn $60,000 per annum, rent and have two children in child care will pay no net income tax—the combined effect of family tax benefits, child-care assistance and rent allowance for these families will in effect cancel out the income tax that they would have to pay.
In my view, that is an extraordinary level of direct government intervention in the financial circumstances of middle-income families. In effect, governments are taxing families then returning the money with strings attached, creating complex relational and financial effects along the way, most of them undoubtedly benign or positive but some not so. Comprehensive reform of this complicated web of financial relationships is, I think, essential, and it needs to be built not just on dry financial considerations, important though they may be, but also on the relational impacts, the behavioural impacts, of these arrangements.
We in the Labor Party support financial assistance for families. We effectively created it. We support financial assistance for people studying in order to better their skills. Again, the origins of much of this assistance that is entrenched in our system in this country come from Labor governments. We support proper, decent retirement incomes for elderly people. We support the provision of child care and child-care subsidies by the Commonwealth.
But I believe that we need to engage in a big search for a better way to deal with these issues, to reform and rationalise the way that we provide financial assistance, to ensure that individuals and families can exercise greater choice, greater flexibility over how they are able to use the financial assistance that the Commonwealth does provide to them. We need to ensure that we manage to rationalise the multiplicity of income tests and assets tests. We need to ensure that we are not paying welfare payments to millionaires. We need to ensure that there is a clear understanding that the purpose of these payments is to make provision for assistance to individuals and families who otherwise would have great difficulty in providing for themselves because of the circumstances that happen to apply in their particular stage of the life cycle.
We need to keep in mind the imperatives of government efficiency, because every time we add a new payment, a new entitlement, we add a new layer of administration. We add a new layer of processing. We add a new burden not only on the taxpayer in the primary payment, which is likely to be justified, but also in processing—in the time and the energy that is spent by Public Service departments, by the various organs of government which have to administer these schemes, but also by individuals. You only have to look at some of the forms that applicants have to complete for some of the entitlements that are now part of what government offers to individuals and families to see that there is also a burden that is imposed on the citizen and on families as a result of these unduly complex, and in some cases conflicting, entitlements.
Nobody knows how big that burden is. Nobody knows what the efficiency costs to government and the transactional or friction costs that are associated with delivering such a bewildering proliferation of different entitlements are. But it is long overdue that we have a very serious look at all of these entitlements in order to work out better ways of delivering the assistance, better ways of ensuring that the maximum amount of money goes to where it should go, that we are genuinely supporting effort, that we are genuinely supporting people studying, that we are genuinely assisting families to raise children and that we are genuinely assisting people in their older age to live a decent life.
I believe that we are just at the start of a major debate on these issues, and I look forward to contributing further to that debate. There will be many ideas, many possibilities, and I commend the amendments that are to be moved by the member for Sydney in this debate on the bill. I think they establish one very important principle that should be central in the further and wider reform considerations that I am keen to engage in and that I know others are—that is, we should not be in the business of providing transfer payments to very high-income families. We should not be in the business of providing welfare to millionaires. That should be a bottom-line factor in our considerations.
I rise this evening to speak on the Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006. The bill makes several amendments to the social security law and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 in a number of family assistance related measures, as follows. From 1 July 2006, the lower income threshold for family tax benefit part A will be increased from the current $33,361 to $37,500, thereafter indexed on 1 July. From 1 July 2006, the backdating provisions for carer allowance will be restricted to allow for a maximum backdating period of 12 weeks prior to the claim lodgment date. The Secretary of the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will have the power to transfer child-care places from an area with an assessed lower demand to an area of higher demand. Child-care benefit debts will be able to be offset against tax refunds. There are also a number of minor technical amendments to the portability of payments overseas and the treatment of superannuation and income streams for pension purposes.
There are many provisions of this bill that we on the Labor side are happy to support, such as the increase in the lower income free area for family tax benefit part A from the current level of $33,361 to $37,500 from 1 July this year. However, we have some major concerns about some elements of this bill, and we are therefore moving several amendments.
I will discuss in detail one part of this bill which relates to the carers allowance. Labor is moving an amendment which will provide a discretionary power for the Secretary of the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to extend backdated carer allowance claims in cases where there are genuine reasons for the delayed application. The bill as it currently stands will severely cut back the period for which carers can have payments backdated, from the current 12 months for the care of a disabled child to just 12 weeks. It is estimated that this measure will significantly reduce payments made to carers when they first apply for the allowance. The government estimates it will save between $35 million and $37 million each year. That is $37 million currently being paid to carers of Australians with significant disabilities—$37 million that will not be paid from 1 July this year.
Not only is this unfair; it is plain unjust. It is very poor public policy, especially when you consider the often tragic circumstances under which people apply for the carer allowance. The people who will miss out on the carer allowance are all taking care of a loved one who, in more cases than not, has a very severe disablement. They may be carers who themselves have an injury, disability or chronic illness that makes it difficult to access services or help or that prevents them from applying without the assistance of others.
The department admitted to Labor in Senate estimates last year that, under the current arrangements, ‘a high proportion of children’ are backdated for 52 weeks. The department admitted that the number backdated was ‘of the order of 90 per cent’. There are many good reasons why these families have provided care for such a long time without claiming the carer allowance. They are struggling to survive from day to day, and filling out forms is the last thing on their minds. It can also take time for a complete diagnosis or treatment before a family knows exactly the circumstances in which they find themselves. A family can find themselves dealing with great trauma to the family unit. This bill will do great harm to these very people. I am struggling to understand how the government can begin to justify this kind of policy decision. It is beyond my comprehension why savings have to be made on this basis.
The government is trying to make significant savings at the expense of Australians with the hardest of lives—those who care for a child with a disability. Labor’s amendments will give the secretary of the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs the discretionary power to extend backdated carer allowance claims in cases where there are genuine reasons for the delayed application, such as: the person is unable to readily access relevant services or advice just 12 weeks after the disability their family member has suffered; the person was unaware of the carer allowance, not an unusual occurrence from my experience; or the person underestimated the ongoing needs of their child and realised how much care would be needed months after the disabling condition occurred—again, not an unusual circumstance. I cannot believe there would be one member in this place who would not have come across these circumstances in constituency experiences through their time here in the parliament.
Carers make a great contribution to our society by caring for their loved ones who may otherwise be taken out of the community and placed in permanent care elsewhere. The contribution carers make is not only to the people they care for but also to the community and to the economy more broadly. It is estimated that carers save the Australian economy approximately $20 billion annually. They do this by providing this unpaid work.
But we must be honest about the work carers do. It is difficult and provides very few benefits other than the satisfaction of caring for the loved one. We cannot ignore the fact that informal care comes at a cost to carers in terms of their wellbeing, their quality of life, their financial security and their opportunity to be in the paid workforce. It is not at all unusual for people representing carers in this society to describe those sorts of circumstances as dramatically affecting people who find themselves in that caring role, particularly when we are talking about caring for children with a disability. Therefore, in my view and in the view of the people on this side of the chamber, we should be doing all we can to improve the lives of carers and to assist them. Unfortunately, I am of the view that the federal government has done very little in the grand scheme of things to improve the lives of carers. It seems to be doing everything possible to make their lives more difficult when we look at this sort of public policy. This bill is just one example of a mean-spirited government and its attitude towards families and carers of people with a disability.
Labor is moving several amendments to this bill to make it more equitable and far fairer for all of these Australians. One Labor amendment will introduce an income threshold on family tax benefit part B to stop millionaire families from receiving payment. Labor is proposing a family income cap of $250,000 per annum on and above family tax benefit part B to stop very wealthy families from receiving the payment. This measure in itself would generate savings of approximately $7.5 million a year.
One cannot but compare and consider. On the one hand we have families with very high incomes receiving these welfare payments and, at the same time, this government is guiding a policy to make it more difficult for carers of children with a disability to apply for an allowance. One really has to wonder at the anomaly, at the hypocrisy of that kind of policy. It is beyond me to understand the logic behind it; I do not believe there is any. It is quite shameful that in a country where some children grow up without enough food and clothing there are families on annual incomes in excess of $1 million receiving welfare payments.
Other Labor amendments to the child-care provisions would provide a more flexible system for the allocation of child-care places and prevent the government from removing a place from a child-care service unless that place gets reallocated to another provider. This would help to overcome systemic problems in the current approach that have caused chronic shortages of child-care places in some areas.
In conclusion, I wish to draw that comparison again. Why is it that the government is content in this legislation to continue to allow families on very high incomes to receive welfare payments while it is also moving to make it more difficult for people caring for a child with a disability to apply under the current circumstances and in the future? We really need to consider this comparison very seriously when we listen to the government’s claims of governing for all Australians. In summary, Labor support this bill but we are moving amendments which make the changes much fairer to the people I know in my electorate who need that fairness and the people across the country likewise.
The Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006, which is before us, seeks to implement a range of measures which were foreshadowed in the 2005 budget. While we support the bill, the opposition—the member for Sydney, in particular—will move a number of amendments which we believe are worthy of government support. I take the opportunity this evening to speak specifically on the changes to the administration of child care outlined in the bill and to touch on some other areas of maladministration of child care, which I think is an important issue that the government must consider.
The bill seeks to provide the Secretary of the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs with the power to take allocated but unfilled places off a child-care provider in order to allow the redistribution of places from areas of low to high demand. This in itself is unobjectionable but, in my opinion, it does not address some fundamental failures in the administration of our nation’s child-care system that I now want to touch on. In my view, the biggest administrative failure—and we can tinker around the edges—is the lack of planning by this federal government. This, as we know, has led to shortages of places, particularly for children under two, across the nation at the same time that pockets of oversupply exist in some other areas.
According to the most recent ABS data that I could find, in June 2002 over 61,000 children could not access services because all the services were booked, 30,000 children could not access services because of the expense of the services, and 22,000 children would could not access services because there were no services available in their area. So, when you look at June 2002 data, which is quite dated now, we see that back then around 113,000 children were not accessing formal child-care services because of problems related to access—that is, there were either no places available or the cost of places was prohibitive. So you would have to say that there is something fundamentally wrong with the administration and planning of child-care services in this country.
The bill has a very limited scope in proposing one minor change to the system, where I think the system really does need a drastic overhaul. At a time when, in outlays through the CCB, the cost of child care since 1990 has risen tenfold to around $1.7 billion a year, we as a nation are still short by over 100,000 places through lack of either affordability or accessibility. The child-care system is growing very rapidly in our country, but it is growing in a very unplanned way. This inevitably causes anxiety and hardship for many families—and many families that I represent are living through this experience. Those lucky enough to have places have seen costs rise by around 60 per cent over the last four years. Many local families in my electorate of Throsby are forced to put their names on a waiting list—and, on many occasions, on more than one—in early pregnancy and then have to wait for years for a suitable placement for their young children. No wonder we learn that around a quarter of a million women are not in the workforce because they cannot find or afford a child-care place.
The tragedy in terms of the administration of the system is that the Howard government has allowed this system to become dominated by private providers, for whom the profit motive becomes a primary motivator. Child-care provision unfortunately has become a licence to print money, as I said earlier, with the government outlaying some $1.7 billion through the child-care benefit scheme. As Mr Groves, the CEO of the largest private conglomerate, said recently, ‘You cannot help but make some money.’ He confirmed that ABC Learning Centres had received 44 per cent of its income from government subsidies—that is $128 million of its $292 million revenue—last year. This company has spent around $700 million on acquisitions and takeovers and it now controls about 930 centres, with the aim of expanding its coverage to 1,300 by mid-2008.
A recent analysis of the ABC Learning Centres projects that the company is to make a net profit in the order of $379 million by the year 2008. If the figure of 44 per cent of revenues coming from the government’s subsidies remains constant, this will translate into $167 million of taxpayer moneys being transferred directly into the pockets of Eddie Groves and his shareholders. No wonder their recent announcement of $88 million in profits was described as appalling by the convener of the National Association of Community Based Children’s Services. She argued—and I agree—that the $88 million in profits announced by ABC Learning Centres could be going to far better use in making child-care services more accessible and more affordable.
The truth is that companies like ABC Learning Centres have tapped into a rich seam of taxpayer funding, which is underpinning its earnings and its profit levels with a government guarantee that is underwritten by the CCB. What really worries me—and I am not against the notion of private provision—is that often these healthy profits are coming at the expense of ensuring decent conditions for staff working in these centres and in the provision of quality of the facilities on offer.
Interestingly, in the recent Herald series on the inadequate quality controls of many of our centres, it was reported that ABC Learning Centres last September was ordered to pay $76,792 in fines and costs after an inspection of one of their centres at Wee Waa. This inspection found ‘mouse droppings on the floor and in bedsheets, redback spiders in an outdoor toy storage area accessible to children, and no smoke detectors’. The company had also failed to keep ‘dangerous cleaning materials, disinfectants, poison, medication and other dangerous substances away from children’. This is a company, as I say, that recorded an $88 million profit, which was underwritten by the outlays of the government through the CCB. Lynne Wannan, the spokesperson for the community based sector services, commenting on the child-care industry recently, had this to say:
Standards have been lowered, poorly paid and inexperienced staff employed and dubious practices crept in as larger providers built bigger centres and strove to get economies of scale. As they became larger, they used predatory pricing to drive smaller, community-based services and even smaller private operators out of business.
We have a new minister, and I am pleased to see he is in the House tonight. Last year, in response to a question on notice I put to the then minister, I was advised that, of the 6,333 children in my electorate of Throsby who were using formal child-care services in the 2003-04 financial year, nearly 60 per cent were in private centres. Interestingly—and I hope the minister picks up on this—when it came to placements for children under two, which is a national problem, of the 930 children under two in child care in Throsby, 70 per cent were in fact in community based child-care services. In his answer, the minister advised me:
There are no requirements for private providers in areas of high demand to provide places for children under 2 years of age.
In other words, companies like ABC Learning Centres can cherry-pick the market, free of any government constraints. The company profits are underpinned by taxpayer funding, yet the taxpayers’ interests—having accessible and affordable services—are left to the mercy of the marketplace, free from government intervention, free from any overall consistent planning and free from any form of regulation.
We can add to this another case of maladministration by this government: their much touted 30 per cent child-care rebate. As we know, the rebate was promised at the last election, though no-one has yet seen a single cent of it paid out. Parents, as we know, have to wait up to two years for tax relief, and you have to hope that they have not lost their receipts in that time. It is a highly complex system which no doubt favours higher income earners. Beyond that—and very worryingly, Minister—this rebate inevitably will promote price inflation, with no guarantees of quality improvements attached to the additional costs of care. It sends the wrong signals, yet again giving scope for profit-making centres to further increase their fees. We already know from the available data that child-care costs rose by 10 per cent last year and by 60 per cent over the past four years, five times the rate of inflation. Child care in many areas is becoming more expensive than private education, with the parents of children in some long day care centres being slugged $100 a day.
It is true, and I acknowledge, that the child-care benefit assists many in our community, but the value of the benefit is not linked to the actual cost of providing care. As child-care costs have risen, the relative value of CCB, which is only indexed to CPI, has declined and the out-of-pocket costs faced by families have had to rise to meet the gap between the entitlement and the fees charged. Child-care costs have risen by 49 per cent, above the rate of inflation between 2000 and 2004, and it is families like the ones I represent who have had to meet these additional gap costs. Not surprisingly, recent data shows a steady decline in the affordability of child-care services. So, beyond the minor amendment that is proposed in the government’s bill, I think the time has come for the government to examine the impact of both the child-care benefit and the rebate on the crisis in child-care provision in this country.
I am concerned, in terms of the administration of the system, that the 30 per rebate places no obligation on child-care operators to provide better access to services or to improve their quality in return for the money that will flow into the industry. Interestingly enough, the government itself has acknowledged that a portion of the rebate might flow directly to the profits of child-care operators rather than to the parents who use the services. So yet again I lament the fact that private providers stand to benefit, in the absence of government requirements. We could well see the value of the tax rebate eaten up entirely by an increase in child-care fees and profits, without any real benefit to children or their families.
There are many areas of serious concern in the administration of child-care provision. With an estimated outlay of $1.7 billion by the federal government through the benefit—on some estimates, rising to $2 billion when you add in the tax rebate to come—its hands-off approach has left the community with a sense of no coherent planning, huge areas of unmet demand, large cost increases which are making services unaffordable, a child-care benefit which today bears no relation to actual costs and a new rebate which will be inflationary, adding further financial pressures onto families who are struggling to cope.
Jackie Kelly, the member for Lindsay and a government member, was right in saying the system is a shambles. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer need to get their heads out of the clouds and understand the huge dimensions of the child-care crisis in our nation. I am pleased that the Treasurer is on the public record as saying recently:
We must look at how to improve opportunities for women, create the most female-friendly environment in the world.
We would be right behind him if his rhetoric actually translated into some real and tangible achievements. A modest start to the Treasurer’s grand vision would be a commitment in the coming budget to fix the shambles that is the child-care system. In that regard, I would draw the minister’s attention to some of the very constructive proposals for change that have been aired by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Sydney, and to a recent document issued by ACOSS under the title Fair Start: 10-point plan for early childhood education & care.
This government has billions of dollars in its surplus and unprecedented powers to push for changes in the system; it just needs the will to do so. But, after 10 long years, many promises and a lot of rhetoric about the work and family balance being the big barbecue stopper, I must say that the families I represent do not see a material difference in policy outcomes. Despite all its rhetoric, the government has refused to increase the number of long day care places that are affordable and within reasonable travelling distance of home. It controls the supply of family day care and outside school care places with an iron fist, resulting in chronic supply-and-demand problems.
As I said earlier, it has refused to acknowledge that the child-care benefit needs to be increased to actually represent the costs of child care, and it has relied increasingly on families to meet the ever-widening gap between the benefit and fees, such that child care in many areas of the country is becoming a luxury service purchasable by some but not all. As I pointed out in my contribution tonight, I am most concerned that private providers under this government are allowed to cherry-pick the system and to amass huge profits underpinned by government outlays through the CCB. The time for tinkering with the system is over. Australia’s provision of child-care services needs and demands a thorough overhaul so that the system works in the interests of the public by providing affordable and accessible places in a planned and coherent manner.
in reply—I thank all those members who contributed to the debate tonight. The Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 will amend the family assistance law, the social security law and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to implement several measures announced in last year’s budget and some other current initiatives. These measures will be particularly important to Australian families and those helping to support themselves in retirement. Families will gain a higher rate of family tax benefit through an increase in the lower income threshold from $33,361 to $37,500 from 1 July this year. The new threshold will keep its value by being indexed according to the CPI on every following 1 July. This is substantially more than would have occurred through annual indexation. The bill will also reduce family tax benefit and child-care benefit debts by improving the way customers’ estimates of income are managed in working out their entitlements. These new provisions will also take effect from 1 July 2006. This will allow estimates of income for the current income year.
The bill contains two further measures relating to child care. Under the first, the distribution of the available child-care places will actually be enhanced by allowing the transfer of child-care places from areas with lower demand to areas of higher demand. Second, from 1 July this year the recovery of child-care benefit debts will be improved by more closely aligning the recovery methods currently available with those available for family tax benefits. In particular, a customer’s child-care benefit debts will be recoverable by applying the customer’s or a consenting person’s tax refund.
From 1 July 2006 the bill standardises the backdating provision for carers allowance to allow for a maximum backdating period of 12 weeks before the claim is lodged, whether the carer is caring for an adult or a child. I commend and I thank the Senate committee for its work in reviewing this legislation. They made a very valid point in suggesting that the government ensure that the medical fraternity are aware of this particular provision so that parents of young children in particular who are in need of this carer allowance are aware of it at the time that they are seeing their doctor in relation to the condition of their loved one. In doing so, we want to be able to ensure that those parents are aware of and access that payment at the earliest possible time. I might add that this measure has been introduced to align with other backdating provisions, because in the past there were very awkward and difficult conditions that carers and parents generally had to adhere to in determining whether or not a child was eligible for this payment. Those measures have been removed.
The bill makes various social security and veterans’ entitlement amendments flowing from the government’s response to the review of pension provisions by small superannuation funds. In part these amendments extend the term of market linked income streams and life expectancy income streams so that payments may continue to the member or spouse to age 100. Similarly, if the member or spouse has a life expectancy greater than 100, the greater age will be allowed for. These amendments also allow customers to vary annual market linked income stream payments by amounts between plus and minus 10 per cent. This will actually help them average out their income and allow the income stream to satisfy them throughout their retirement. The bill makes many other minor amendments in this area, including an enhancement to the operation of the income stream rules and allowing certain non-superannuation annuities to be split as part of a divorce property settlement.
Finally, the bill amends the social security law and family assistance law as they relate to payments being made overseas, known as portability. This will be welcomed throughout Australia for those who need it, which unfortunately is often due to illness of children where they have to go and receive assistance overseas.
I have a couple of very quick observations on the contributions of the opposition. Many took the opportunity to speak to the bill with regard to family tax benefit and their belief that it is inappropriate. I simply say to the members of the opposition that it is still current Labor policy not to support the family tax supplement. The last time anyone spoke about it was to say that it was not real money. I would invite them to revisit that and look at changing their policy into the future.
The member for Throsby just spoke at length about ABC Learning Centres, a private provider of child care, basically suggesting that the profits they are making are obscene. It also must be noted that it is the for-profit sector and the capital that they have injected that has provided the additional places. Their growth is largely the reason the number of places in child care have doubled in the term of this government, as has expenditure. She clearly would prefer not-for-profits to be running the sector. While she said that these profits were obscene, she also said she had heard that predatory pricing—dropping the pricing for mothers—was in fact impacting upon some of the not-for-profit centres in her electorate. It would just seem to be a totally contrary argument: on the one hand having lower prices, forcing people out, and on the other hand saying that there are these obscene profits.
She also mentioned standards. I remind her that licensing is in fact a state requirement. The states look at and determine staff ratios. So if the member for Throsby thinks that the staff ratios are inappropriate, she should be taking this up with her state colleagues. I do not believe she will do that. In fact, I am absolutely certain that she will not do that with any conviction. They are also the ones that determine how much space each child should have and the size of the building. It is not the federal government. Therefore, if the member for Throsby has arguments on those issues, the appropriate people for her to take up these issues are her state colleagues.
Finally, in relation to the Labor Party’s comments tonight about freeing places up, I understand that the Labor Party’s policy at the last election was to include about 8,000 additional outside of school hours places. The federal government’s was 84,300—tenfold. The reality is that there is another round to be undertaken shortly. Far from being iron fisted and very restrictive, my aim is to ensure that the places go to where they are needed and that parents as they elect to take up their option to return to work have the options in which to do it. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I move:
(1) Schedule 3, page 23 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:
2A Clause 32 of Schedule 1
Repeal the clause, substitute:
32 Income test
This is how to work out an individual’s reduction for adjusted taxable income:
Method statement |
(2) Schedule 3, page 23 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:
2B After clause 33 of Schedule 1
Insert:
33A Combined income free area
The combined income free area is $250,000.
(3) Schedule 3, Item 3, page 23 (lines 11 to 13), omit the item, substitute:
4 Application of amendments
(1) The amendments made by items 1 and 2 apply in relation to the 2005-06 income year and later income years.
(2) The amendments made by items 2A and 2B apply in relation to family tax benefit for the 2006-07 income year and later income years.
Step 1. | Work out the individual’s income free area using clause 33. |
Step 2. | Work out whether the individual’s adjusted taxable income exceeds the individual’s income free area. |
Step 3. | If the individual’s adjusted taxable income does not exceed the individual’s income free area, the individual’s income excess is nil. |
Step 4. | If the individual’s adjusted taxable income exceeds the individual’s income free area, the individual’s income excess is the individual’s adjusted taxable income less the individual’s income free area. |
Step 5. | The individual’s reduction for income is 20% of the income excess. |
Step 6. | Work out the combined income free area using clause 33A. |
Step 7. | Work out whether the total of the individual’s adjusted taxable income and the adjusted taxable income of the individual’s partner for that year exceeds the combined income free area . |
Step 8. | If the total of the individual’s adjusted taxable income and the adjusted taxable income of the individual’s partner for that year does not exceed the combined income free area, the individual’s income excess is nil. |
Step 9. | If the total of the individual’s adjusted taxable income and the adjusted taxable income of the individual’s partner for that year does exceed the combined income free area, the individual’s income excess is the individual’s adjusted taxable income less the individual’s income free area. |
Step 10. | The individual’s combined reduction for income is 20% of the income excess. |
Step 11. | The individual’s reduction for income is the greater of the amounts calculated in steps 5 and 10. |
(3) The amount referred to in clause 33A will not be subject to indexation on 1 July 2006, but will be subject to indexation in accordance with the Act for the 2007-08 income year and later income years.
(4) Schedule 5, page 25 (line 2), omit “Reducing allocation of child care places” substitute
“Allocation of child care places”
(5) Schedule 5, after item 2, page 25 (after line 14), insert
“2A Section 206
Before “The Minister” insert
“(1) Subject to subsection (2),”
(6) Schedule 5, after item 2, page 25 (after line 14), insert:
“2B Paragraph 206(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) procedures relating to the allocation of child care places to approved child care services, provided that such procedures:
(i) must specify that child care places may only be allocated if an application is received from a person able to provide approved child care services; and
(ii) must specify that the Secretary determine requests from any approved child care services for additional child care places at least monthly”.
(7) Schedule 5, after item 2, page 25 (after line 14) insert:
“2C Paragraph 206(b)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) matters to be taken into account in working out the number (if any) of child care places to be allocated to approved child care services, provided that the guidelines specify that the primary matters to be taken into account are the relative needs of:
(i) different areas of Australia for the kinds of child care places to be allocated, and
(ii) people in each area who have work, training or study commitments.”.
(8) Schedule 5, item 4, page26 (lines 6-7), omit paragraph(a), substitute:
“(a) that number has exceeded, for a continuous period of at least 12 months, the number of child care places provided by the service; or”.
(9) Schedule 5, item 4, page 26 (after line 25), after subsection 24(4) insert:
“(4A) If the Secretary reduces under this section the number of child care places allocated to an approved child care service, and if a valid application for places or for additional places has been received, the Secretary must, within 7 days after the day on which the reduction takes effect, allocate the places to one or more other approved child care services.”.
(10) Schedule 5, item 4, page 27 (after line 11), after section 207B add:
“207C Details to be included in annual report
The Secretary must include, in the annual report made under section 232, details of
(a) the number and the location (including the relevant federal electorate) of child care services which have been subject to a decision to reduce the number of child care places allocated to them;
(b) the number and location (including the relevant federal electorate) of child care services which have been allocated places taken from other services; and
(c) the number and location (including the relevant federal electorate) of child care services which have applied for places or for additional places but not been allocated those places or those additional places.”.
(11) Schedule 6, page 29 (after line 7), after item 1, insert:
1A At the end of Clause 16 of Schedule 2
Add:
(3) The Secretary may grant an extension to this period of up to an additional 40 weeks where the Secretary is satisfied that a person has a legitimate reason for delaying his or her application for carer allowance.
(4) Without limiting subclause (3), a legitimate reason may be that:
(a) the person may be unable to readily access relevant services or advice; or
(b) the person may have a medical condition that would prevent him or her from applying.
(c) the person may have a psychological condition that would prevent him or her from applying.
(d) the person may have caring responsibilities that would prevent him or her from applying.
(e) the person was unaware of the carer allowance.
(f) the person was unaware of their entitlement to the carer allowance.
(g) the person was unaware that the allowance is not income or asset tested.
(h) the person experienced a delay in having a disability assessment undertaken.
(i) the person underestimated the ongoing needs of their child at an earlier date.
(j) there was a delay in the diagnosis of the child.
(12) Schedule 6, page 29 (after line 9), after item 2, insert:
2A At the end of Clause 17 of Schedule 2
Add:
(3) The Secretary may grant an extension to this period of up to an additional 14 weeks where the Secretary is satisfied that a person has a legitimate reason for delaying his or her application for carer allowance.
(4) Without limiting subclause (3), a legitimate reason may be that:
(a) the person may be unable to readily access relevant services or advice; or
(b) the person may have a medical condition that would prevent him or her from applying.
(c) the person may have a psychological condition that would prevent him or her from applying.
(d) the person may have caring responsibilities that would prevent him or her from applying.
(e) the person was unaware of the carer allowance.
(f) the person was unaware of their entitlement to the carer allowance.
(g) the person was unaware that the allowance is not income or asset tested.
(h) the person experienced a delay in having a disability assessment undertaken.
(i) the person underestimated the ongoing needs of the person they are caring for at an earlier date.
(j) there was a delay in the diagnosis of the person being cared for.
These amendments go to a number of the issues that I raised earlier this evening. They relate to the introduction of an income threshold on family tax benefit part B to stop families earning more than half a million dollars a year or $1 million a year from receiving family tax benefit part B. The amendments also go to providing a discretionary power to extend backdated carer allowance claims in cases where there are genuine reasons for the delayed application, such as that the carer did not know about the payment or that the caring responsibilities increased during the time that the carer had not been receiving the payment.
The amendments also go to preventing the government from removing places from out of school hours care services or family day care services unless those places are immediately reallocated to another service. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent a situation where places are horded by the government, where they are announced during election campaigns or during budget speeches and then sit there unallocated—sometimes tens of thousands of places at any one time. I spoke earlier this evening about how those places are frequently extremely difficult for family day care services and out of school hours care services to get. They often wait up to two years for the allocation of a place.
The amendments also go to requiring the minister to report to the parliament on any transfers of child-care places between areas of low and high demand. The Labor Party is not confident and I am not confident that this system is adequate as it stands. We hear from the government time and time again that they do not know where the shortages are. I think that any system that allows more power to take away places from services in an environment where the government proudly claims not only that they do not know where shortages are but that they do not care and that it is not their responsibility to know is a system that is not going to deliver optimal outcomes to children or to their parents.
The government opposes the Labor Party’s amendments. Particularly in relation to child care, holding a place for 12 months before it can be reallocated is a way of restricting it from being used in the marketplace—maybe unintentionally, but that would be the outcome. We are suggesting that, where there are places currently in services that are not being used and have not been used for a long period of time, those be returned and allocated so that they can be used where services have identified them. That is clearly my aim.
In relation to the backdating of the carers payment, I sympathise with the concerns that the shadow minister has articulated. It is about carers being aware of it. The amendments in fact would throw out this measure, and they miss the point of why it is able to be changed. It is because the onerous task of determining via a medical doctor what the issues are that require a carer allowance to be paid has now been removed. As I indicated earlier, I will be making major direct communications with the medical fraternity so that when a parent turns up with a child who has a disability, they are informed, ‘This is something that you may well be able to get an allowance for’ and they go to Centrelink. The issue that you raise is one that we could have addressed better in the past and I intend to address it fully in the future so that these circumstances do not arise.
The amendments relating to the FTP have not been Labor Party policy in the past. I would strongly suggest to the Labor Party that, in the interests of Australian families, they look at how powerful and important that money is to families and that they look at the policy they took to the last election. I commend the bill to the House.
Question put:
That the amendments (Ms Plibersek’s) be agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Order! It being 9.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
With the introduction this week of the government’s extreme industrial relations laws it is timely to look at the trucking industry, where small operators are facing a severe crisis. At the last election the government revealed that it would introduce laws covering independent contractors. It is transparent that such laws may be aimed at undermining what current support small truck owner-operators are able to access through the union movement. It is almost a certainty that laws to this end would decimate small operators, who are already struggling to remain viable in a fiercely competitive and increasingly deregulated industry.
The industry estimates that currently 300 operators go out of business every week, in 99 per cent of cases due to financial problems. But this is not an issue confined to the industry. The impact of the crisis these small operators are facing is felt throughout families and communities, particularly in rural and remote areas with a heavy reliance on the long-haul trucking industry. Many trucking families are living on overdrafts in circumstances of poverty and severe financial stress. The results are high divorce rates and family breakdown, an understandable scenario when you consider that many of these owner-operators work more than 70 hours, and sometimes up to 100 hours, per week.
Having said that, there is much that can be done to ease the burden of these owner-operators. The key issues that must be addressed to assist small trucking businesses are minimum freight rates based on specified conditions such as kilometres and load weight and national regulation to reduce the red tape faced by small trucking businesses. As you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, these are very important issues.
On the issue of rates, it is important to note research by ACIL Tasman showing that 60 per cent of all business in the road freight industry is done by small trucking operators but that they earn only 11 per cent of total income. Moreover, additional research shows that real road freight rates have been declining for more than 40 years. National minimum freight rates that are less likely to be undercut because of the fierce competition in the industry would help improve the viability of the industry.
The lack of uniform regulations for operators that cross borders places a disproportionate level of financial and operational hardship on small trucking businesses, according to a recent study done into the viability of owner-operators and the impact on their families. I refer to a report by Transport Women Australia on Australian trucking families in crisis, which found that there was a dire need for national regulations. I also praise Australian transport families represented by Transport Women Australia for bringing this report to the attention of members of this House over the course of today. It is important that the House listens to the issues raised by Transport Women Australia. They see at first hand the financial hardships, the problems of keeping families together and the impact not only on their families but also on many small communities in regional, remote and rural Australia.
For example, operators require different vehicle specifications for different states. I therefore raise the issue of the poor regulation of distribution centres which means that many truck drivers wait between eight and 10 hours to load their vehicles—time that could be better spent resting, which I contend is a vital part of improving the safety of the road transport industry. As the member for Corangamite will appreciate as he goes out to count the numbers for his forthcoming preselection, the reason for this is that these duties add to fatigue on the road caused by delivery pressures, and this presents a risk not just to drivers but to all road users. These are issues that need to be addressed by both the government and the private sector to increase the profitability of the industry for smaller players.
In conclusion, let me say this. Ultimately, addressing the issues is in the interest of all of us as recipients of freight, especially considering that road transport makes up a large percentage of the freight industry and has such a significant impact on rural and remote communities. If the member for Corangamite had been prepared to stand up for these operators over many years, I am sure he would have a comfortable margin in the forthcoming preselection. I wish him well but I wonder whether the neglect of road transport operators over many years has endangered his future tenure in the House of Representatives.
The haunting footage of the last Tasmanian tiger, pacing in its cage, is now etched, as on copperplate, in Australia’s collective memory—the footage of a species reduced to a tragic sideshow. Like the Tasmanian tiger, a number of whale species in the Southern Ocean, such as the fin whale and the humpback whale, are under threat of extinction, their stocks not yet recovered from decades of unrestrained whaling.
I stand today to praise the government’s project-conservation endeavours which have sought to protect these and other species from Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean, much of which is commercial whaling by another name. I note the valiant efforts of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Ian Campbell, at last year’s International Whaling Commission meeting in Korea, as reported in the Australian newspaper on Friday, 24 February 2006. Minister Campbell was instrumental in defeating a Japanese proposal to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling which has been in place since 1986. Today, he put out a media release proving that so-called Japanese whaling research can be conducted by non-lethal means. Unfortunately, we are faced with the absurd situation that, while a majority vote of the IWC would lift the moratorium on commercial whaling, a majority vote of the IWC is powerless to enforce it.
There are, of course, other avenues of recourse available. For example, some of the offending Japanese whaling is taking place in Australian Antarctic waters. The Australian government’s position is that currently there is no firm avenue of legal recourse against Japan with respect to the international court. The former New Zealand Labor Prime Minister and current New Zealand Commissioner to the IWC, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, agrees. He was quoted in the Australian on 16 January 2006 as saying:
We have been looking at the legal theories that are available … for some months … and there is no legal theory that is available that can prevent … the Japanese from doing what they are doing.
I have met with representatives of the International Fund for Animal Welfare and Professor Donald R Rothwell, Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney. Professor Rothwell is of the opinion that Australia could take Japan to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for breaches of the Law of the Sea Convention. The basis of this advice is that the Japanese plan to recommence hunting humpback whales will prejudice the humpback whales’ $300 million contribution to the Australian whale-watching industry.
In any event, Minister Campbell has stated that the government’s preference is for a diplomatic response to build international support for Australia’s pro-conservation stance, but legal options have not been ruled out. I am of the view that, if the Japanese whaling fleets decide to recommence the slaughter of the humpback and fin whales, the white gloves of diplomacy must be removed and the real fight should begin. In the meantime, I urge experts such as Professor Rothwell, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and those from the Attorney-General’s Department to work together to develop legal options.
One must not forget, of course, that Australian consumers can play their part too. The New Zealand seafood company Sealord is a name familiar to many Australians. It is part-owned by the New Zealand company Aotearoa Fisheries and the Japanese company Nissui. Nissui is heavily involved in commercial whaling and is a major shareholder in whaling fleets such as Kyodo Senpaku which are carrying out whaling in the Southern Ocean. I warn Sealord that I will personally recommend that constituents in my electorate do not purchase Sealord products if its sister company recommences the hunting of humpback and fin whales, which will have an impact on Australia’s $300 million whale-watching industry.
I would like to congratulate Greenpeace for its campaign to stop whale hunting in the Southern Ocean. I have been a member of Greenpeace longer than I have been a member of the Liberal Party, and I joined Greenpeace after watching the slaughter of whales in the Southern Ocean. (Time expired)
The number of people living in poverty in Australia has grown enormously under the Howard government. To put this in perspective, I visited the ACOSS website and looked at what the test for poverty is. That website defined poverty as ‘people in a society that cannot participate in the activities that most people take for granted’. This website shows that 58 per cent of Indigenous people, 28 per cent of jobless people, 28 per cent of people renting, 22 per cent of single parents and seven per cent of older people in this country live in poverty. It also showed that four out of five families earning the lowest 20 per cent of income had social security income as their main support. The website says:
Poverty is not just caused by individual experiences but by major inequalities that are built into our Australian society.
ACOSS looks at and identifies five main causes of poverty: access to work and income, education, housing, health and services. It makes the statement that ‘poverty is a relative concept’. It estimates that about two million people are living in poverty in Australia today.
The issue I would like to raise within the House is the connection between poverty, inequality and social exclusion. Accompanying poverty, you will find there is inequality of opportunity, inequality of education and inequality of access to employment. This goes together to cause social exclusion. Under the Howard government, this has mushroomed. More and more people are finding it harder and harder to survive, and poverty and welfare dependency has been growing at a strong rate. It has been growing even though we have a strong economy.
Under the Howard government, we have had legislation brought in that will further disadvantage people who are already struggling. We have had the Welfare to Work legislation, legislation with the basic premise that if you are a single parent—particularly a single mother—it is your fault and you should be made to pay for it. As such, you are going to have a reduced income. If you have an injury or an illness, then once again it is your fault, particularly if it is a back injury—it is fabricated, and you are using that to avoid work.
Along with this attitude to disadvantage, inequality and social exclusion, we have the stereotyping that goes along with it. This stereotyping follows the lines of: ‘If you’re not working, if you’re poor, then it’s your fault.’ I was very fortunate to come across a wonderful young woman who lives in the Shortland electorate. Her name is Chloe Hennessy. She attends St Mary’s Catholic School and she is 13 years of age. She comes from Windale, which is one of the poorest communities in Australia. She lives in department of housing accommodation. The purpose of my speech tonight is to share with the House the way she feels. She says:
An example of labels and prejudice against things, is me. Many people daily say at school I will go no where, and there is no point in me even going to school. People label me and call me a “windalien”. When in fact it is the total opposite. It may hurt sometimes when people say this, but I thank them. Because when they say their label “windalien” teaches me to be stronger and raise my voice, and don’t hold back. What they say can only make me stronger; because I know whether you live in Windale or Floraville you can do anything when you put your mind to it. It’s not the suburb where you live that does your schoolwork and makes you stronger. In my mind that’s a real quality for me to know at the age of thirteen. So I thank you to all those who think their better than me because your making me stronger and wiser. When I’m recruiting employees in my future working career, I will give people like me the respect they deserve, and employ them based on their abilities not where they live.
This stereotyping has been allowed to blossom under the Howard government. (Time expired)
Tonight I wish to pay tribute to a great Territorian, Mayse Young OAM, who passed away last week. Mayse Young was born in North Queensland 93 years ago. Her father was a ganger on the railways who worked extensively throughout North Queensland. Mayse grew up in what could be described as tent accommodation with outdoor cooking, dirt floors and no mosquito nets, generally living an itinerant type of lifestyle. Some of the towns where Mayse lived in her early years and where she managed to take advantage of some primary schooling were Proserpine, Tully, Innisfail, South Johnstone and Home Hill. Mayse’s family travelled from job to job, mostly by horse and wagon and later by truck. Mayse’s parents were George and Eveyln Dowling. Times were very tough and Mayse did not even have a pair of shoes until she was 11 years old.
In 1927 George and Evelyn decided to move to the Northern Territory, when Mayse was just 13 years old. They headed out in a Ford one-tonne ute and a dodge motorcar from Camooweal following the stock route. That was an extraordinarily lonely trip. The isolation during that trip could not have been greater. The drovers in those days must have been the loneliest people in the country. On arrival at Maranboy in the Northern Territory, George did not have any trouble finding work on the railway line and Evelyn kept the home fires burning.
But in 1929 work dried up and George and Evelyn decided to take the family once again interstate. They headed south to Alice Springs, down through Port Augusta and across the Nullarbor and eventually on to Perth. This travel of course in those days took a number of months. Unfortunately, the prospects in Western Australia did not meet the family’s expectations at all, so they slowly worked their way back up north through Broome, through the Kimberleys, over to Wave Hill and back to Katherine. The family had been on the road for nine months when they set up camp on the Katherine River. At that time the Dowlings renewed their friendship with the well-known O’Shea family. Tim O’Shea advised George and Evelyn that it was a pretty good idea at the time to buy the Pine Creek Hotel, which they did.
During this time Mayse, with her siblings, developed a wide range of bush skills. They made friends with the local Aboriginal kids and their lives changed from itinerants to publicans. Mayse learned how to make beds and set and wait on tables. She did washing and ironing and became a damn good barmaid as well. It was a thrill for them to sleep in a bed and they actually had a stove to cook on. After years of camp fires and carbide lamps the hotel seemed a fantastic place to live. Mayse’s brother Ted provided support to his parents. He drove the hotel truck collecting stores and generally fulfilling an important job around the pub. The meals at the hotel were complemented with fruit and vegetables locally grown by the Chinese market gardeners.
It is interesting that Mayse wrote a book. She said she could never remember being bored or lonely in Pine Creek. Mayse went on to own cattle stations, becoming an avid pastoralist in her own right. She had problems during the war and lived quite an exceptional life. The family eventually disposed of their interests in the pastoral industry but they always maintained a constant interest in the hotel business. Over the years I have come to realise that the Territory has many unsung heroes, barely remembered now because of time. (Time expired)
New evidence has emerged concerning the extent of shareholdings in AWB by senior Liberal and National Party members. In 1996, soon after he came to office, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Primary Industries, John Anderson, set in train the privatisation of the publicly owned AWB. The privatisation consisted of giving 67,500 grain-grower members of the Wheat Industry Fund A- and B-class shares. The A-class shares provided rights to vote for AWB directors. The B-class shares were floated on the stock market at a minimum of $3.15 each. The 67,500 WIF members were given about 242 million shares, or about 90 per cent of control of AWB. At the time of the float they gained over $760 million.
The former Deputy Prime Minister sold AWB B-class shares for a healthy profit just before the damning Volcker report became public. He failed to disclose on the register of interests that he had sold these shares. He still holds A-class shares and has not disclosed these on the register, even though a House of Representatives resolution of October 1984 requires disclosure of all shareholdings in public and private companies.
The National Party Minister for Community Services, the member for Parkes, Mr Cobb, and his wife have held two parcels of shares dating back to 1996 and still retain A-class voting shares. Mr Macfarlane, the Liberal Party MHR for Groom and Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, held shares in AWB but went off the share register in July 2002. He was President of the Queensland Grain Growers Association for seven years and President of the Grains Council of Australia for two years, and he simultaneously held executive positions on the Queensland Farmers Federation and the National Farmers Federation. Mr Wakelin, the Liberal MHR for Grey, currently holds 4,211 shares in AWB, according to Computershare records, and has held an unknown number of shares previously, along with at least three members of his immediate family.
Then there is Mr Scott, the National MHR for Maranoa, President of the Queensland National Party. His family company, Crochdantigh, is a trustee of his family trust. Crochdantigh has had AWB shares since the 1990s, which he has never disclosed. Mr Scott says income from the company is distributed to his wife and children, but this is no excuse. The parliamentary rules require such interests to be disclosed. Bill Heffernan, Liberal senator for New South Wales, is a beneficiary of the family trust WP Heffernan Nominees Pty Ltd. This trust owns AWB shares that Senator Heffernan had not disclosed. Senator Heffernan now admits he owns over $4,000 of AWB shares, which he failed to disclose to parliament.
At least six Howard government ministers and members of parliament have been buying and selling AWB shares at various times during the life of the Howard government. They had vested interests in AWB which were in conflict with their duty to protect Australia’s reputation for honesty and integrity in its trade deals. Their handling of this conflict of interest has been appalling. First, several of them failed to publicly disclose their shareholdings in an accurate and timely fashion. They had to be caught out. Second, there is no evidence that they ever declared their shareholdings in cabinet, the party room or parliamentary debates about AWB, or indeed that they have acted to remove themselves from decision making which concerned their vested interests. The former primary industries minister, Mr Anderson, carried out the float of the Wheat Board through the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. He was a direct beneficiary of these changes, but he and others paid no attention to proper disclosure of conflict of interest.
Third, given this extensive involvement in AWB by Liberal and National Party personnel, the Howard government’s dismissal of the numerous allegations that AWB was paying kickbacks and simple acceptance of the word of AWB management that the claims were unfounded become more understandable. Too many Howard government personnel did not want to hear anything bad about AWB because they had shares in the company. They only heard what they wanted to hear. The Howard government deliberately turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the chorus of concern from home and abroad. Fourth, Minister Anderson sold his shares after warning bells were ringing throughout the government’s ranks but before the Cole inquiry was established and AWB’s share price fell. Was he guilty of insider trading? We will not know until he does what ministers Downer and Vaile ought also to do, which is to front up to the Cole inquiry and answer questions on oath about their personal knowledge of this scandal.
I rise tonight to draw to the attention of the House the success of the AusLink program and the various funding mechanisms in it for people in rural and regional Australia. In the last week I have been to a community meeting of the residents of Thompsons Beach in the Dublin institute, where they were looking at the sealing of Ruskins Road. This road is the only ingress and egress point for this community. Some 300 movements a day are recorded on this road. The only option this community has to get this road sealed, because the council itself has a small rate base and a large amount of roads it needs to maintain, is Australian government funding through programs such as Roads to Recovery and black spot. The value of the whole AusLink program—which includes Roads to Recovery, black spot and additional funding for South Australia of some $26.3 million—provides an option for these communities to look for some hope. Last year the council devoted the entire $156,000 it received to start that process. I look forward to the continuation of this program, because for many small communities, such as the community at Thompsons Beach, this provides an avenue forward. I encourage the government to continue with this program, because it gives those communities an option for roads.
Just as importantly, though, it provides some certainty and some options for communities to have an input. The community of Port Wakefield, in the northern part of the Wakefield electorate, has been seeking for some time some certainty in terms of whether a bypass is going to be constructed around the town of Port Wakefield. In the past there has been a degree of confusion as to who is responsible, given that it is a national highway. People could not seem to get their wishes known. The AusLink planning process now includes a corridor planning process. Stakeholders—ranging from each level of government through to industry groups, small businesses and the community—realise now that they have an opportunity to have input into what the requirements are for not only the actual highway but the feeder roads into that highway.
I was at a meeting recently where I had feedback from constituents who were concerned. I highlighted to them how the AusLink planning process works and the fact that local communities and local governments, working with the state government, can have input into the planning process. We have seen local government take the lead and have some community consultation. We have seen the state government, Transport SA reps, consulting with people. We have gone from a situation of frustration and some considerable antagonism towards potential development to people realising that here is a planning process where their needs and interests can be heard and recognised. As they look at the next five-year window of funding, there is an opportunity to identify the priority that something like a bypass around the town of Port Wakefield will have.
Lastly, I wish to also address the strategic regional program looking at land transport concepts. Regional growth in Wakefield is large, and there are a number of burgeoning industries there which are starting to employ more people. One of the significant things they have recognised that they need for growth is efficient transport systems. This program is bringing together coalitions of local governments—crossing local government boundaries—organisations, business and community groups who see the potential to collaborate and to access funding under AusLink so that they can see infrastructure development which will give them efficient and effective transport, not just because the transport is good to have but because of the large flow-on effects that it has for the viability of industry, for, importantly, the employment opportunities that that brings and for the growth and sustainment for smaller regional and rural communities. I wish to commend the government for the AusLink program.
Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
asked the Speaker, in writing, on 6 March 2006:
The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The following notices were given:
to present a bill for an act to amend the Age Discrimination Act 2004, and for related purposes. (Age Discrimination Amendment Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, and for related purposes. (ASIO Legislation Amendment Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, and for related purposes. (Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to provide for the appointment of the Integrity Commissioner, to set out the functions and powers of the Integrity Commissioner, and for related purposes. (Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend laws in connection with the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, and for related purposes. (Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, and for related purposes. (Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to customs, and for related purposes. (Customs Legislation Amendment (Border Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the social security law, and for related purposes. (Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, and for related purposes. (Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to the security of maritime transport and offshore facilities, and for other purposes. (Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981, and for other purposes. (Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Amendment Bill 2006)
to move:
(1) That standing order 11, up to and including paragraph (h), be amended to read:
11 Election procedures
When electing a Member to fill a vacant office the routine shall be as follows:
Nominees proposed
(a) The Chair shall invite nominations for the vacant office.
(b) A Member shall propose the nomination of a Member to the vacant office by moving, without notice, that such Member ‘do take the Chair of this House as Speaker’. The Member nominated must be present and the motion must be seconded. The mover and seconder may speak in support of their nominated candidate for no more than 5 minutes each.
(c) The nominated Member shall inform the House whether he or she accepts the nomination.
(d) The Chair shall ask:
Is there any further proposal?
(e) If no further proposal is made the Chair shall state:
The time for proposals has expired
If only one nominee—nominee elected
(f) If a nominee is unopposed, the Chair, without question put, shall declare the Member, who has been proposed and seconded, to have been elected to the vacant office.
If two or more nominees—debate then ballot
(g) If there are two or more nominees, when the time for proposals has expired, Members who have not yet spoken as mover or seconder may speak on the election, however:
(i) debate must be relevant to the election; and
(ii) no Member may speak for more than five minutes,
(h) At any time during debate, and whether any Member is addressing the Chair or not, a Minister may move without notice—
That the ballot be taken now.
The question shall be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate. If the votes are equal the question shall be negatived, and debate may continue. If the question is carried, or when debate ends, the House shall proceed to a ballot.
(2) That standing orders 141 and 142 be amended to read:
141 First reading and explanatory memorandum
(a) When a bill is presented to the House, or a Senate bill is first received, the bill shall be read a first time without a question being put. A Member presenting a bill during private Members’ business may speak to the bill, before it is read a first time, for no longer than 5 minutes.
(b) For any bill presented by a Minister, except an Appropriation or Supply Bill, the Minister must present a signed explanatory memorandum. The explanatory memorandum must include an explanation of the reasons for the bill.
142 Second reading
(a) If copies of the bill are available to Members, the Member presenting the bill may move immediately after the first reading, or at a later hour—
That this bill be now read a second time.
At the conclusion of the Member's speech the debate on the question must then be adjourned to a future sitting.
After the first reading of a bill presented during private Members’ business, the motion for the second reading shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting.
(b) If copies of the bill are not available, a future sitting shall be appointed for the second reading and copies of the bill must then be available to Members.
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of the Post 1945 Conflicts Galleries and Discovery Room for the Australian War Memorial, Canberra, ACT.
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Fit-out of an extension to leased premises for IP Australia in Woden, ACT.
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian Institute of Police Management Redevelopment, North Head, Manly, NSW.
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Securities and Investment Commission at 120 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic.
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Facilities Project, Enoggera, Qld.
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Provision of facilities for Project Single LEAP – Phase 1.
to move:
That this House:
to move:
That this House:
to move:
That the Workplace Relations Regulations 2006, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No 52 and made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, be disallowed.. (Notice given 28 March 2006.)
to move:
That this House:
Over recent years I have made a number of speeches in the House in relation to Telstra and privacy issues. Some of the themes that I have covered were picked up last year in the Australian newspaper. For example, on 1 September last year the Australian dealt with some of the issues in a story headed ‘Telstra admits snooping on staff but denies “dirt files”’. Amongst other matters, the company secretary of Telstra was quoted as saying: ‘Secret dossiers are not kept and Telstra does not seek to collect information on employees’ et cetera. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a document obtained under summons by a constituent of mine. It is the coversheet of a Telstra file on an employee and is marked ‘Telstra: secret’.
Leave granted.
If an employee file marked ‘Telstra: secret’ is not a secret dossier, I do not know what is. Also under summons, my constituent received a number of papers, including a handwritten note on a Telstra file that gives the name ‘Helen, Moorabbin CIB’ and a phone number. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
What is concerning about this is that here we have file No. 2 on an employee marked ‘secret’. One has to ask what happened to file No. 1, and whether there are any others. It concerned my constituent so much that there is a reference on her file in relation to contact with the CIB that she wrote to the ethical standards department of the Victoria Police and, amongst other things, said:
Given the information available to me, I am deeply concerned that it appears my LEAP file has been subject to unauthorised access and I have grave concerns that information contained on my LEAP file has been passed to an unauthorised third party.
Given the controversy in Victoria in relation to unauthorised access to police files, one would think the Victoria Police may well have reacted to this. However, my constituent received a letter back, saying:
This department does not investigate allegations such as yours based on the information you have given.
There are a number of areas of potential serious concern here. Firstly, the company secretary’s statement that Telstra does not keep secret files on its employees is clearly shown to be incorrect. Secondly, the apparent evidence of some sort of connection between Telstra in its dealings with its employees and Victoria Police is equally concerning. Also, I am somewhat concerned, given the controversy that occurs in Victoria particularly in relation to access to police files, that the ethical standards department of Victoria Police appears not to be willing to investigate this allegation.
I wish to bring to the attention of the parliament the considerable achievements of a wonderful resident of my electorate, Mrs Maureen Kingston AM. Maureen has been a tireless and dedicated worker in various capacities on the Sunshine Coast and in Brisbane previously. I have had the opportunity to work closely with her in her leadership positions on the Fisher Seniors Council, which I set up, and also the Fisher Australia Day Awards Committee. I have always found her to be determined, hardworking, friendly and supportive.
Her most noted achievement was her involvement in the Association of Independent Retirees, a wonderful organisation which represents retirees who have provided for their retirement during their working life. I am proud to say that this organisation, which has somewhere near 20,000 members in 80 branches across Australia, originated on the Sunshine Coast. Maureen Kingston was one of the foundation members and she helped to mould this organisation to become one of the most visible and effective champions of the needs of this sector of the community, to whom society at large owes so much. Maureen was its first national president, from 1992 to 1996, and national president again from 1998 to 2000, and its first honorary life member. Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello are among the many who have received regular correspondence from the Association of Independent Retirees. From annual budget submissions through to suggestions for improvements to capital gains tax guidelines and other issues, Maureen helped to create an Association of Independent Retirees that was not afraid to push its case with the government of the day.
Maureen retired from the national presidency of the AIR in October 2000, but not before having steered the organisation to one of strength and respectability that gives a considerable voice to the views and wishes of Australia’s independent retirees. On her retirement her contribution to the AIR and its members was honoured in a press release from the then Minister for Aged Care. Her efforts were recognised by the Treasurer who, during his keynote address for the AIR’s 10th anniversary, said:
She has been a familiar figure around Parliament House and other institutions as a tireless advocate, not only for the Association of Independent Retirees, but for older Australians and her community in general.
The recognition she has received at the State and Federal level, including the Medal of the Order of Australia—
subsequently upgraded to the AM—
attests to her compassion and community spirit.
Maureen’s achievements serve as a reminder of how much can be done through constructive social partnerships between government and community organisations. They also serve as a valuable reminder of the active contributions many older Australians make to our communities.
I can assure you that Maureen was an active, intelligent and persuasive advocate on your behalf as we went about designing the New Tax System.
Maureen was someone who could walk through the doors of all senior ministers. She is greatly respected by people on both sides of politics. She has worked closely with me, as the member for Fisher, and she is a wonderful Australian, a person whom I greatly regard and a person I am very pleased to be able to recognise in the Australian parliament this afternoon.
I thank the opposition whip for her courtesy and consideration for allowing me to speak at this time. A week or so ago North Queensland was hit by Cyclone Larry. But the message that I would like to convey this afternoon is that North Queensland is open for business. Yes, a small part of North Queensland has been devastated—the part around Innisfail, Babinda, Tully, Mission Beach, up on the tablelands, Malanda and Millaa Millaa—but it is only a small part of North Queensland. Certainly, all of the major tourist centres remain open for business. What has just been wonderful and brilliant is that our prize, the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area, has been unaffected by the cyclone. In fact, perhaps it has been affected in an interesting and positive way: water temperatures have cooled and coral bleaching has perhaps been reduced. But my message this afternoon is that North Queensland is open for business and anyone who was planning a trip this year, this month or next month should continue on that trip and support North Queenslanders at this time.
A group that has not received perhaps the respect that it deserves is Telstra. Lots of things are said about Telstra; often those things are negative. But when Cyclone Larry came through, of the 146 mobile phone base stations in the area, only three went out of service—and they went out of service because of physical damage to the towers. It was not the equipment that failed. It was not the power supply that failed. It was the physical damage. Telstra, to its very great credit, understood that many home phone services became inoperative, probably because the houses that had the services in them got blown away. Telstra undertook to those customers to divert their home phone line to any mobile service, whether it be a Telstra mobile service or a competitor’s mobile service, free of charge for a year. That is a terrific gesture on behalf of Telstra. I guess that Telstra is the Qantas of the communications sector of Australia. Long may it be the Australian flagship—the technology leader in this country. I thank Telstra for what it has done for the people of North Queensland.
Yesterday marked the introduction of the Howard government’s extreme workplace laws. Overnight, the entire notion of a fair go was junked for working Australians. This legislation marks the beginning of the Howard government’s attack on employees and their families, and inevitably we will begin to see more and more victims of John Howard’s war on workers.
In the context of the new workplace laws, I rise today to speak about an important situation at the James Hardie site in Meeandah in my electorate of Lilley. Here employees have been attempting to negotiate their enterprise bargaining agreement since September 2005, to no avail. Since late last year, James Hardie deliberately held out and dragged their feet on negotiations in what can now only be perceived as a strategy to bide their time until the Work Choices legislation came through.
In Howard’s new workplace environment, James Hardie can now negotiate a deal which will be well below the standards of the previous agreements. Some 47 workers at Meeandah could lose over $100 per week in penalty rates. The dispute at Meeandah goes to the heart of the concerns of working Australians about the government’s industrial relations agenda. Here employees are being pitted against one another and being forced into a position where they must accept a different agreement with eroded wages and conditions.
Employees at James Hardie at Meeandah have not had a wage increase since September 2004 and have nothing to look forward to except reduced pay and penalty rates. Since October last year, James Hardie has refused to renegotiate a common collective agreement covering its two sites at Meeandah and Carole Park. In a deliberate attempt to hold wages down, the company has steadfastly attempted to pursue different agreements on each site. To lock employees at Meeandah out and effectively force them into submission, accepting lower conditions and wages than their colleagues at Carole Park, is simply reprehensible.
The company’s action has been deliberately timed to coincide with the passage of the new workplace relations legislation, which severely weakens enterprise agreements. The company has made it explicitly clear in negotiations with the union that it plans to reduce overtime and penalty rates so it can pay employees less for the same 12-hour shift. This is a serious concern for the bulk of the employees who rely substantially on overtime and penalties to make ends meet.
It has been a stressful few months for James Hardie’s employees at Meeandah. James Hardie frustrated all attempts by employees and the Australian Workers Union to bargain in good faith, even taking the drastic step of locking employees out of the Meeandah site through October and November 2005. It was the typical bullyboy approach using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in an attempt to force employees to submit to their demands.
United workers at both sites have refused to split negotiations for the moment but, with the introduction of the new Work Choices, they will now legally have to negotiate two separate agreements. James Hardie insisted all along that the two agreements were necessary to maintain viability at both plants but, in reality, it was all about making it easier to erode working conditions at different sites. I rise to lend my support to the workers at James Hardie at Meeandah and hope they can achieve an equitable—(Time expired)
This is the third time since December I have risen to speak on the issue of child care. I am returning to it because I am angry, just as working parents in my electorate are angry. They are angry at the continuing crisis in child care in Australia and this government’s failure to address the problem. On 11 March the Sydney Morning Herald published a feature article by Ben Hills called ‘Cradle snatcher’, a profile of Eddie Groves, the multimillionaire boss of ABC Learning Centres. I commend Mr Hills on this long investigatory article. It cast new light on the scandalous situation which this government, lazy and complacent in the area of child care, has allowed to develop during its decade in power.
Mr Groves’s company is an Australian private sector child-care provider. The opposition has no objection in principle to private child care or to Mr Groves getting into the child-care business and making a profit. If Mr Groves had become a multimillionaire by filling a need in the community or providing a quality product at a reasonable price, I would say good luck to him. But that is not what Mr Groves has done. What he has done is get rich by milking government subsidies. As he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently, when the federal government in Australia is paying you $128 million a year in subsidies—44 per cent of the income that he gets from the 25 per cent near monopoly of the Australian private child-care sector—‘you can’t help but make some money’.
It is enough money, in fact, to be able to build a fortune estimated at $1.2 billion since he opened his first child-care centre in 1989 and enough money to be able to donate large amounts regularly to the Queensland Liberal Party and recently $60,000 to the Nationals. It is no coincidence that the chair of ABC Learning Centres is Sallyanne Atkinson, a former Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane and a Liberal parliamentary candidate. Nor is it a coincidence that the National Party’s Larry Anthony, a former minister for children’s services, is on the ABC board.
Ben Hills’s article shows how Mr Groves has been using his corporate clout to squeeze out competition. It is monopoly power—something the ACCC should investigate. Small community child-care centres cannot afford to fight ABC Learning in court. Mr Groves is using legal power and financial clout to establish monopoly power—something that the Liberal Party in the old days would have been against. He has cherry-picked the most desirable locations—affluent suburbs full of young families where both parents work—while leaving the rest of the community deprived of an essential service. Mr Groves has maximised his profits by underpaying staff and forcing them on pain of dismissal to perform cleaning duties and other tasks that they are not trained for.
When the union which covers child-care workers accused ABC Learning of driving down wages, Groves sued the union secretary for defamation. These tactics will of course become much easier now that the government’s extreme industrial relations law has come into effect. Groves has shown how the combination of low-wage labour and milking government subsidies can lead to huge profits in a short time. Where he has gone, others will surely follow. (Time expired)
I want to take this opportunity to identify and praise those involved in two different sets of environmental activities within the electorate of Flinders. The first is in relation to the Green Corps project at Sages Cottage, Baxter. This is a project to refurbish and beautify the lands around Sages Cottage, Baxter. Sages Cottage has been taken over by Menzies Inc. Menzies Inc. is a community service organisation that has helped children within the Melbourne vicinity who come from disadvantaged homes. Many of them have been abused and have suffered deprived upbringings. This project will allow them to rehabilitate and discover something of themselves and nature in a wonderful and beautiful environment. I congratulate Menzies Inc., which takes care of disadvantaged children. I congratulate the Brotherhood of St Laurence and also Greening Australia, which is running these Green Corps projects.
The second environmental initiative which I wish to deal with is in relation to community water grants. I am delighted that we have had a series of successful applications within the electorate of Flinders for community water grants, put forward by schools and community groups. All up, about $745,000 will be allocated under the Community Water Grants program to community groups, schools and other organisations within the electorate. In particular—and this is what is exciting—it is expected that this funding will help to save over 42 million litres of water which would otherwise be wasted every year. That saving of 42 million litres is being replicated around the country in 1,750 projects. As well as that, about 18 hectares of land which is currently degraded will be rehabilitated.
What does this mean in local terms? It means that projects such as Balnarring Primary School’s utilisation of stormwater for ablution facilities will help to save up to four million litres per year in this one school alone. Balnarring Primary School is one of the leading environmental schools on the Mornington Peninsula. It has its own wetlands. The children are involved in the propagation of species and the development of the wetlands. This is another example of a great local activity.
Other schools, such as Hastings Primary School, using rainwater tanks, will save over a million litres of water a year. The Lord Somers Camp and Power House will save 250,000 litres of water year in Somers. Tooradin Primary School will save almost 100,000 litres a year. These are tremendous local activities. Phillip Island Nature Park, on Phillip Island, will save almost 5½ million litres a year. The Powlett Project, which involves schools in San Remo, Phillip Island, Cowes, Powlett River and Dalyston, means that all of these areas are saving water. I commend the projects. I commend the schools.
I want to speak today on the significant reduction of the after-hours medical services at the Dianella health centre in Broadmeadows in my electorate of Calwell. I also want to present to the chamber a petition, with 1,406 signatures, regarding this issue. These after-hours GP services were reduced as a result of the federal government’s refusal to fund Dianella Community Health Service’s application.
Today in the House the Minister for Health and Ageing quite proudly boasted that under his watch bulk-billing in this country has increased significantly across electorates. That may be the case, but my question to the minister is: if that is the case, why has he on this occasion not seen it purposeful and necessary to fund an after-hours bulk-billing GP service in my electorate of Calwell? The Dianella Community Health Service has provided an excellent seven day per week service for the last 30 years. The service has very skilled and dedicated doctors who have built up important and trusted relationships with local patients.
Due to the changes in federal government policies, together with the shortage of doctors, there needs to be an increase in funding to maintain this service, which has, incidentally, been in trouble for some years. We are not talking about a large sum of money; we are talking about only $150,000 a year, which is a drop in the ocean. Yet, despite the fact that the after-hours GP service is very much the responsibility of the federal government, they have refused on this occasion to fund this service in order to allow it to continue.
This rejection of funding means that the Dianella service, which is an excellent after-hours service, will be significantly reduced and no other viable funding option exists in order to support existing services. This means that there will be no more evening or Sunday and public holiday services for the people in my electorate and Saturday services will be reduced to a mere three hours. This significant reduction in our after-hours GP services is going to have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of my community. Dianella services a particularly underserviced and underprivileged region. Half of our patients are Commonwealth health care card holders and dependent upon local bulk-billing services to access affordable care. No other GP clinic in the region offers similar after-hours bulk-billing services. Forty-nine per cent of Dianella’s patients have said that, if the after-hours service did not run, their only option would be to attend hospital emergency departments, casualty wards, putting, as you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, an incredible amount of pressure on the already overstretched public hospitals.
In short, locals will lose access to the only affordable and accessible after-hours clinic in the area. Community opposition to the move to reduce the service has been tremendous. The Defend Dianella group, led by committed local activists and volunteers, has rallied significant public support as awareness of this issue expands. To date, I have received over 700 individual letters and 1,406 signatures on the petition on this issue. There have been too many cuts to our health care already. I now present the petition to the House.
The petition read as follows—
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the significant reduction of the after hours medical service at the Dianella Community Health Centre in Broadmeadows due to the rejection of funding for this service by the Federal Government.
We are concerned that the loss of this excellent, affordable and accessible 7 day per week service, which has operated successfully for the past 30 years, will disadvantage many patients, as over 250 patients use the after hours service each week, fifty-one percent of which are health care card holders, unable to afford other GPs.
We are further concerned that this reduction in service will increase pressure on the already overstretched public hospitals as this is the only affordable and accessible after hours clinic in the area and 49% of patients seen by the clinic after hours would have attended a hospital Emergency Department if the after hours service did not run.
Your petitioners therefore ask the house to take immediate steps to provide funding to the Dianella Community Health Centre in Broadmeadows, to allow their after hours service to continue and expand.
from 1406 citizens
(Time expired)
I rise this afternoon to laud the excellent example and good work of a leading citizen on the Gold Coast—that is, Mr Patrick Corrigan AM, a philanthropist who has certainly created a benchmark when it comes to providing donations and philanthropy to the Gold Coast City and, importantly, the Gold Coast City Art Gallery. In particular, I would like to highlight that Mr Corrigan recently donated 12 artworks, together with Annie Hogan photographs, which takes the total of his donations in artworks to the Gold Coast City Art Gallery over the past two years to over $1 million. When one takes into account the other donations that Mr Corrigan has solicited from various people around Australia to the benefit of our city, the total value is in excess of $2 million.
I would like to put on the record today my admiration for the example that Mr Corrigan provides to others in the community—certainly to those who have the finance and are in a position to afford such generosity—to make sure that they make a difference in the community. Mr Corrigan is someone whom I regard as a friend, someone I have seen many times on the Gold Coast over the years and someone for whom I have much regard and much time, especially when it comes to matters dealing with the Gold Coast City Art Gallery. The fact that Mr Corrigan is willing to put his money where his mouth is is simply testament to the kind of man that he is.
With respect to the philanthropy that Mr Corrigan has displayed, it is interesting to note that the first time I met Mr Corrigan he provided me with a business card which simply said ‘Mr Pat Corrigan AM’, and underneath that it said ‘Professional beggar’. I was interested to query him as to exactly what the term ‘professional beggar’ had reference to. He explained his ongoing advocacy of trying to solicit artworks, be they photographs, oils or canvas paintings, for the Gold Coast City Art Gallery.
It is a relatively small art gallery when one considers that Gold Coast City is the sixth-largest city in the country. Notwithstanding that, what we lack in size we certainly make up for in substance. It is directly because of the ongoing and tireless work of people such as Mr Patrick Corrigan that our city can have an art gallery we can be truly proud of and can provide access to art works and photographs unable to be provided within the limited budget of our city’s regional art gallery. In highlighting the great track record that Mr Patrick Corrigan has and his example of philanthropy not only to the Gold Coast community but to communities across Australia, on behalf of the community, I say thank you to Mr Patrick Corrigan and thank you to those who have contributed over $2 million as a result of his requests.
In recent months we have seen a number of developments that give cause for concern about the strength of democracy in the Philippines. On 24 February Philippines President Gloria Arroyo declared a state of emergency, which granted expanded powers to the security forces, prohibited political rallies and permitted the arrest of the government’s political opponents without warrants. Extraordinarily, the President’s declaration of a state of emergency came on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the people power movement which brought about the overthrow of the grossly corrupt Marcos regime. President Arroyo used the expansion of her powers to authorise raids on the offices of a pro-opposition newspaper and prohibit and break up planned rallies and protests commemorating the people power anniversary.
I am particularly concerned by reports that a democratically elected member of the Philippines parliament, Mr Crispin Beltran, was arrested and detained under the special powers of arrest granted under the state of emergency, which enable persons to be arrested without a warrant issued by a judicial authority. Mr Beltran has been charged with involvement in an alleged plot to overthrow the Arroyo government. No-one in this place condones any act of political violence or any act at all which is designed to overthrow a democratically elected government. Such actions are abhorrent and must be condemned. On the other hand, the arrest and detention of one’s political opponents under cover of emergency powers and without a warrant are equally a cause for legitimate concern. Five other elected representatives have been given refuge by the full congress of the House of Representatives from attempts at warrantless arrests being made against them. These are representatives Satur Ocampo from Bayan Muna, Teodoro Casino from Bayan Muna, Joel Virador from Bayan Muna, Liza Masa from Gabriela Women’s Party and Rafael Mariano from Anakpawis.
I am also concerned by reports that in the past month four political activists from the trade union and student movements appear to have been murdered in politically motivated acts of violence. Regrettably, these do not appear to be isolated incidents. The Philippines Commission on Human Rights has reportedly investigated 381 cases of political killings between January and September 2005 and 307 in 2004. These developments are a cause for concern for all advocates of democracy and political freedom in our region. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are the foundations of a democratic society. The government of the Philippines must do all that it can to ensure that these civil liberties continue to be respected and protected in the Philippines. The suppression of political dissent cannot be allowed to be the legacy of the people power movement that captured the world’s attention some 20 years ago.
Hinkler has again defied the ALP doom and gloom merchants by achieving Queensland’s second highest increase in bulk-billing rates between 2004 and 2005. Hinkler’s bulk-billing rate reached an average of 69.9 per cent last year, a whopping 9.4 per cent improvement on 2004. It was the second-biggest percentage increase for any Queensland electorate, and way ahead of the 5.3 per cent average increase for the state during the same period. It builds on the 14.2 per cent bulk-billing increase achieved between June 2003-04 and June 2004-05, which was actually the biggest percentage increase in Queensland for that time frame. I have worked hard to see that Hinkler gets its fair share of bulk-billing doctors, and we have been well and truly beating many urban seats in lifting our bulk-billing services. I recognise that not all doctors wish to be part of this and have particular needs they wish to convey to their patients, but I would like to think that seven out of ten of my constituents have access to a bulk-billing doctor if they need one.
Hand in hand with that achievement is another increase in the number of employed people in the Wide Bay Burnett region, in which Bundaberg is located. In the 12 months to December 2005 an extra 6,800 people in the region found paid work, bringing the total number of employed people to 106,500. The region has also recorded an increase of 0.7 per cent in its employment rate, which can be attributed to new industries and businesses being established and an expansion in real estate and building activity.
I wager we will not hear the Labor Party saying a good word about these achievements. After all, it was that party that tore the Hinkler schools to shreds for taking the initiative and applying for Investing in Our Schools funding. The IOSP specifically targets projects that have been identified by the school communities themselves—I stress ‘themselves’. It has been critical to the schools, which never seem to make it to the Labor state government funding priorities lists.
Federal Labor should be putting more energy into convincing its state colleagues to adequately fund state schools rather than attacking a successful government program that seeks to redress the failure of state governments to support their schools. What could be fairer than having the school communities—the P&Cs and the principals—putting an application to the federal government for those things that have been missed out by state Labor governments?
Things are going very well in Hinkler, and it is largely attributed to the activities of the Howard-Vaile government. I trust that it will continue for many years to come.
Order! In accordance with the resolution agreed to in the House yesterday, the time for statements by members has concluded.
I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Today I rise to outline the continuing legal and social inequalities that are still faced by lesbians and gay men across Australia every day. All individuals are entitled to the right to participate fully in society and to receive the support and protection of the law regardless of their sexuality. This is surely a basic right and one that I believe the majority of Australians would expect to be honoured in law. Yet this right is far from being a reality.
I have been fighting for basic legal equality for same-sex couples since I was elected to federal parliament in 1996. When I first set foot in this chamber as a younger, less cynical member in 1996, I knew that a government led by the current Prime Minister would not necessarily be a friend of the lesbian and gay community. But I did know that there were many members of the coalition parties who did support reform. I knew that it would be difficult to wind back centuries of legally entrenched discrimination against lesbians and gay men. Despite this knowledge, I genuinely believed that there would be steps forward.
I knew that governments around the world—including many in traditionally conservative countries—had rolled back antiquated, discriminatory laws. I knew that there were many supporters of reform within this chamber. And I believed that the case for reform was so persuasive that no government, no matter how conservative, could ultimately resist it. Ten years later, I stand here as a more cynical member on these issues. I no longer believe that major reform is achievable, unless there is a change of government.
The past 10 years have seen the greatest advancements in lesbian and gay rights of any period. Almost every state and territory now provides a system for formal recognition of same-sex relationships. These reforms, introduced by Labor governments committed to equality and fairness, have progressed with broad community support including, in some cases, support of members of the coalition parties. Yet what have we seen federally in the past 10 years? It is a pretty grim picture. The only legislative reform that has recognised same-sex couples as family members has been the antiterrorism legislation. At the same time, gay men and lesbians face daily discrimination, enforced by federal government legislation, that denies them access to government benefits, tells them that their relationships do not exist before the law, and imposes discriminatory rates of taxation. How could any member of the government honestly reconcile this contradiction?
Recognition of same-sex relationships must not be seen as some kind of trendy, inner-city issue. In the past 10 years, as I have campaigned for equal rights, I have received messages of support from people across Australia. As the member for Leichhardt reminded us recently, this is as much a concern for people in regional Queensland as it is for the constituents of my electorate of Grayndler. This should come as no surprise, because the practical implications of the government’s staunch devotion to continued discrimination against same-sex couples are very real for those who suffer because of them.
Allow me to provide a few examples. In taxation, there are many rebates that provide benefits to people who live as members of couples, whether married or not. These benefits recognise that, when people live together as a couple, their relationship has an element of interdependency in sharing of resources and that there are often sound public policy reasons for recognising this through the tax system. These benefits include the dependent spouse rebate, the superannuation rebate and the parent rebate. Yet same-sex couples are not recognised for the purposes of these benefits. This means that people in same-sex relationships pay more tax for no other reason than the gender of their partner. The government is prepared to recognise that gay and lesbian terrorists may work together but is not prepared to recognise that law-abiding lesbians and gay men may share their finances and resources with their partners.
In health, a major area of government expenditure, we now have the Medicare safety net. As with tax rebates, the safety net recognises that some people live as members of a couple and provides a lower threshold than would apply if both members of a couple were treated individually. Once again, this benefit is denied to people in same-sex relationships. This means that a same-sex couple may have to spend as much as $1,000 more than their heterosexual neighbours in medical expenses in a year before they qualify for the safety net. This discrimination continues through the health system into the private health insurance rebate. Once again, couples receive concessionary treatment but people in same-sex relationships are denied access to this benefit. The government is very happy to recognise that terrorists may be gay or lesbian but it will not accept that lesbians and gay men fall ill and need health services just like everybody else.
In the area of family law, the government seems committed to putting its own prejudice ahead of the best interests of children. Currently, when a marriage breaks down, all relating matters are heard by the Family Court. When a de facto relationship breaks down, however, the property division falls under state jurisdiction while disputes over children are heard by the Family Court. Accordingly, most states have agreed to rectify this division by referring their power over property to the federal government. But, instead of resolving this problem for all Australians, draft legislation indicates the Howard government will only accept the referral for heterosexual de facto couples. This means that, for same-sex couples, property division will occur in a state court but that, if there is a dispute about child custody, this will be heard by the Family Court. How can it be in the best interests of children for the relationship breakdown to be dragged through two courts, two legal systems and two lots of hearings? Labor is committed to ensuring that same-sex couples are included in these changes to the operation of the Family Court.
Another area of federal responsibility close to my heart is superannuation, where, for most of the life of this government, members of same-sex relationships have been denied access to death benefits upon the death of a partner or, in the rare circumstances where benefits have been paid, have faced discriminatory rates of taxation. As members of the House will recall, I have consistently campaigned for reform in this area. I have moved private member’s bills on a number of occasions and raise this now for the 26th time in the chamber. I was therefore very surprised but pleased that, in 2004, the government announced that it intended to recognise same-sex relationships for superannuation purposes. Of course, the reality of the so-called reform was very different from what was promised. Same-sex couples were not specifically recognised in superannuation legislation. Instead, they were given a second-class form of recognition as part of a grab bag of other dependent relationships. Further, the many gay men and lesbians who have spent their working lives in the Public Service were excluded from the changes, meaning that they still face the reality that their partner may be denied access to death benefits, regardless of how much they may have contributed to superannuation over the course of their career.
The record of the government is clear. As a result of this discrimination, lesbians and gay men pay more tax and receive fewer services and benefits than other Australians. But of course there is another side to recognition of same-sex relationships—that is that, because of the failure to recognise these relationships, there are also many circumstances where extra entitlements from the Commonwealth are paid, in areas including social security, in particular. I stand here today with the same commitment with which I entered the House in 1996: a commitment to removing discrimination against same-sex couples in federal laws. I look forward to the day when a new Labor government will act to end the absurd anachronistic discrimination that I have outlined today.
Labor’s position on recognition of de facto same-sex relationships is clear. On 10 August 2004, the Labor caucus determined that Labor in government will work with all groups to reform federal laws to recognise the diversity of legitimate relationships in the Australian community. This resolution extended the commitment that Labor has taken in some form or another to every election since 1996. Labor remains committed to recognition of de facto same-sex relationships as a basic measure to achieve equality in areas such as health, tax and superannuation. I note that the Prime Minister, at the end of 2005, gave indications that he also supported that position—but there has not been any action.
My message today is that it is no longer enough. Labor’s shadow Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, will introduce a private member’s bill to outlaw discrimination, harassment and incitement to violence based on sexuality or gender identity. This is an important step forward. Nicola Roxon has also announced that Labor has commenced consultation on models for a system of relationship recognition. Labor would not redefine marriage. I know from talking to many of my gay and lesbian constituents that there are many who do not seek marriage rights, even though there are some who do. Labor should allow those who want to ensure formal recognition of their relationship through mutual consent to do so. I believe civil unions are the best way to allow this to happen.
I believe that Australia should and ultimately will follow the lead of countries such as New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom and introduce a system for recognition of civil unions. I note that in the ACT assembly today just such legislation was introduced. This should be pursued in cooperation with the states and territories so as to remove any constitutional uncertainty and achieve a uniform system across the country.
In making my views clear in this way, I do not seek to impose a model upon the gay and lesbian community. In addition to Labor’s own consultation, we will also listen to consultations undertaken by the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. I have a strong suspicion, however, that these consultations will show strong support for civil unions. I want to make it clear that if this is the case I will support that model of reform. When one sits in a house of parliament of a nation that accepts and enshrines discrimination and inequality, one should expect to be judged by history. It is time for the nation to move forward and remove this discrimination.
Order! Before calling the honourable member for Mitchell, I should advise those members present and others that will read the record of this debate that this adjournment debate, which is to be negatived after eight participants, has been agreed to to replace the grievance debate which did not proceed in the House yesterday as a result of the revised arrangements due to the visit of Prime Minister Blair.
I was encouraged by some of the remarks of Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, about Australia’s role in the Middle East and particularly the war in Iraq. As part of the grievance debate, I am obliged to grieve for some of the misinformation in and lack of direction shown by some sections of the media and the Australian community. While I understand the differences of opinion, we have had three leaders make statements over the last few days on this war and the circumstances in which Australia finds itself in the Middle East. Those leaders have been democratically elected by great nations.
Here within Australia I can say that all of us endorse the goals of the Australian forces in Iraq, no matter what our political view. Differences have arisen about whether or not we should be in Iraq but, having achieved some success in Iraq, I believe that everyone in this parliament wants to see the Australian contingent, those men and women who are seeking to build a new life for Iraqis and a new democracy in the Middle East, succeed.
Tony Blair’s comments must enliven us to reconsider where we stand. I hope that those who are strongly opposed to us being there will take note of his words. He is a man of commitment and when he talks of values one realises that he has aspirations for the great good of all mankind. Some may disparage President George Bush, but when you combine what he says with what Blair says and what Howard and Beazley say—the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—you have a balance. I refer to some of the comments made by the British Prime Minister. He said:
Here are Iraqi and Afghan Muslims saying clearly: democracy is as much our right as yours; and in embracing it, showing that they too want a society in which people of different cultures and faith can live together in peace. This struggle is our struggle. If the going is tough—we tough it out. This is not a time to walk away. This is a time for the courage to see it through.
And later on in his speech in the Australian House of Representatives he said:
The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is that they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged.
The reality is that none of the problems that press in on is can be resolved or even contemplated without them.
He went on to expand on the involvement of United States in solving the world’s problems in regard to security. He also spoke of our misunderstanding the importance of Iraq and Afghanistan and the role for the future of justice and fairness as well as security. The Prime Minister, over a period of time, has made statements, as we are aware, in regard to Iraq. I will pick up just a few words of the Prime Minister’s as he addressed the special forces returning to Australia on 25 February this year. The Prime Minister said:
There will be times when people will wonder whether it is worth the effort. But let me say to you that it is worth the effort because the sort of way of life that we are opposing is a way of life that would never win any acceptance in our country, it’s a way of life which is completely anathema to everything that this country stands for.
That was picked up as well by Brendan Nelson, the Minister for Defence, when he was addressing the Defence Magazine conference in Canberra just a week or so ago on 14 March. The Minister for Defence said:
In the space of three years we’ve gone from an environment where clearly the overwhelming majority of Iraqi people want democracy. Unlike us they actually risk their lives to vote. The Sunni participation increased in the space of a year from 5% to more than 70%. If you reflect on the dreadful bombing in Samara, the bombing itself was dreadful, as were some of the retribution bombings.
He also said:
There are now more than 200,000 Iraqi security forces, army and police ... To basically oversee and support the Iraqi security forces, and the local Iraqi Governments, and also to support provincial reconstruction and indeed training.
We have a responsibility as Australians who value freedom, and people being free to choose their own destiny and future. As much as we do to fight terrorism, wherever it occurs, we have a responsibility to be there until the Iraqi Government says to us, thank you for your help, we can now care for ourselves.
I put those comments together with some of the recent remarks made by President George Bush. I commence by picking a quote that he made on 20 March in his discussion at the Renaissance Cleveland Hotel in Cleveland, Ohio. He said:
Last December, four short months ago, more than 11 million people expressed their opinion. They said loud and clear at the ballot box that they desire a future of freedom and unity.
That is what the whole process is about. It is about being able to create that opportunity for others. As Tony Blair has said, if you believe in it and are committed to it, you need to fight for it. I pick up again some of his words. He said that there is still full support from the United Nations for the forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And why is there that support? He says:
They know if they lose a message is sent out across the Muslim world that strikes at the heart of their ideology.
Later in the same speech the Prime Minister of Britain said:
To win this struggle we have to win the battle of values as much as arms. We have to show that these are not Western still less American or Anglo-Saxon values, but values in the common ownership of humanity, universal values that should be the right of the global citizen.
This is the challenge I believe we face, and ranged against us are of course the people who hate us;
… … …
If we want to secure our way of life, there is no alternative but to fight for it. That means standing up for our values not just in our own countries but the world over.
He said later:
The immediate threat is from Islamist extremism.
George Bush in his comments pointed out some of the extreme measures that are undertaken by the forces at work in Iraq such as the use of improvised explosive devices. He indicated that the coalition forces have cleared nearly 4,000 improvised explosive devices, uncovered more than 1,800 weapons caches and bomb-making plants and killed or detained hundreds of terrorists and bomb makers.
In 2005 the Iraqi economy grew an estimated 2.6 per cent in real terms, and the IMF has estimated it will grow more than 10 per cent in 2006. In nominal terms, Iraqis’ per capita income had dropped from $3,800 in 1980 to $715 in 2002, which was lower than that of Angolans. In 2005, per capita income is estimated to increase to over $1,000. The story of increasing success goes on in the story of increased access to education and improved water supplies and health conditions. All in all, it is a cause that is difficult but one in which we dare not fail. I want to thank the Prime Minister of Britain for the comments he made in our parliament. (Time expired)
At the height of the Cold War, John Fitzgerald Kennedy famously said that the United States did things not because they were easy but because they were hard. In our time Australia also has to do things that are hard and accept its responsibilities as the world’s highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases. Despite the government’s mantra of denial and deception, global warming has become a very real threat to Australia’s prosperity and security. The need for immediate action grows with every report of the destructive effects of the increasing global temperatures.
While not diminishing the suffering of the people of Queensland whose homes and livelihoods have been devastated by Cyclone Larry, I have to report that statistical analysis by climate researchers has shown that hurricanes and cyclones like Katrina and Larry are becoming more frequent and more powerful. Climate researcher Judith Curry and her colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology investigated the records of hurricanes and cyclones in the world’s ocean basins between 1970 and 2004. They found after studying a number of factors linked to the occurrence of these storms that the trend to more frequent and stronger cyclones depended only upon sea surface temperature. Virtually every expert in the field says that these changes are being driven by global warming.
The alarming conclusion is that if carbon dioxide pollution continues unabated and greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase then cyclones like Larry and Katrina will become even more frequent and more intense. They may also reach parts of the country, such as southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, that have not previously been threatened. The evidence for global warming is showing up in every part of the world. It is not a problem for the future, it is affecting us now, and the time to start taking effective action to reduce emissions is today.
Global warming cannot be explained by increases in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface. The sun’s output of energy is in fact remarkably stable over millions of years. Nor can global warming be explained by changes in the earth’s orbit or by other natural factors. But it can be directly linked to the 35 per cent increase in greenhouse gas concentrations since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The message is clearer than ever: we must act now to reduce emissions. As a former minister for the environment, Dr Kemp, warned, we must quickly cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 60 per cent if we are to avoid the more disastrous consequences of global warming.
This is worrying evidence of the effects of global warming that only the most ill informed could ignore. Most recently, the United States government’s top climate modeller warned that, under the influence of global warming, the Greenland ice cap could collapse many times faster than previously estimated. Dr Jim Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that the collapse of the ice sheet should be explosively rapid, with sea levels rising by a couple of metres this century and several more next century. To reinforce this warning, the United Kingdom government released a report in February, stating that the world’s climate was close to a tipping point that could trigger the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet and cause a worldwide rise in sea levels of seven metres.
It is not as if there is no evidence for this process. Recent reports show that two of the largest glaciers in eastern Greenland, which together drain one-tenth of the ice cap, have both doubled their discharge speed in the last two years and are now dumping 100 cubic kilometres of ice into the ocean annually. In 1998, a similar increase occurred in the discharge rate of the Jakobshavn Glacier, which drains eight per cent of the ice cap. Adrian Luckman, writing in Geophysical Research Letters, warns that an increase in the discharge from other Greenland glaciers may also be under way and that climate change is the most likely common cause of these changes.
Does the government think all of these people are fools and that their findings are in error? If not, why is the government so determined to do all that it can to encourage increasing consumption of fossil fuels through schemes such as the diesel fuel rebate? As I have stated before, Australia is uniquely vulnerable to the consequences of increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. Firstly, Australia’s geographical location in the mid-latitudes makes us subject to changes in the global weather circulation pattern. I have previously explained to the House how global warming is shifting rain-bearing cold fronts further south and away from the southern states and reducing the long-term average rainfall in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. Furthermore, increases in the frequency of El Nino events appear to be driving up the intensity of droughts in the eastern states while Northern Australia is, as we have most recently seen, at an increased risk of destructive cyclones.
Secondly, Australia’s excessive dependence upon fossil fuel exports, particularly coal, for foreign exchange has left our already precarious balance of payments exposed to the measures taken by importers anxious to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by cutting coal consumption. Australia is the world’s single largest coal exporter. It is one of the few countries that exports more coal than is used locally. In 2002, coal exports of over 200 million tonnes brought in $13 billion in foreign exchange.
Thousands of workers are employed in the mines, on the railways that carry the coal to the ports, at the ports, and in the ancillary industries, such as engineering and construction, that support the mines and the transport infrastructure. Many jobs in New South Wales and Queensland are at risk as countries such as Japan prepare to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing coal imports. What will happen to these jobs if, as is quite possible, the rest of the world takes serious steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by cutting back on the use of coal? Does the government have any plans for this possibility? I doubt it. The government acts as if somehow the human induced changes to the world’s climate will not affect Australia, as if we can blunder on into the future just trusting on dumb luck to see us through the growing crisis. That was the attitude that saw Bob Menzies sell pig-iron to the Japanese before Pearl Harbour and still continues in this government with the exposure of the Australian Wheat Board’s corrupt scheme to pay $300 million in bribes to Saddam Hussein.
For many years Australian scientists and research workers have been putting forward proposals for making the kinds of changes to our economic infrastructure that are needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Amongst them, as I have previously reported, are scientists who work at the University of Sydney who designed and constructed an economically viable, large-scale solar collector attached to a Hunter Valley power station. This installation when completed will produce the heating equivalent of 24 tonnes of coal an hour and will allow the power station to generate approximately 30 megawatts of electricity from the sun. The government has no doubt been made aware of the potential of this project by the former Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham, who visited the site last year, yet it chooses to squander hundreds of millions of dollars on an ill-conceived geosequestration scheme.
In 2004, the government released a white paper entitled Securing Australia’s energy future that promised $500 million in funding for geosequestration and renewable energy research. Dr Ben McNeil from the Centre for Environmental Modelling and Prediction at the University of New South Wales predicts that geosequestration will at best reduce carbon dioxide emissions by seven per cent by 2020. Over the same period, he predicts that Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions will increase by 40 per cent unless there are large-scale changes to our industry. It seems likely that most of the money allocated for Securing Australia’s energy future will be spent on useless schemes like geosequestration, while viable projects involving renewable energy will go begging. The net effect on our carbon dioxide emissions of spending under Securing Australia’s energy future schemes will be negligible.
I say today to this government that it is time to wake up and take the hard decisions to recognise that we have to change the way our industries operate and to realise that the key to Australia’s future is the skills of our workers and not just the products of our mines.
Recently, the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau received numerous complaint letters regarding a certain television commercial. As a result of the complaints, the television commercial is no longer being broadcast. The commercial featured a young professional man who climbed onto the top of a moving bus and then car surfed for some distance before being catapulted off the bus into the surf. The advertising watchdog organisation agreed with the concerns expressed by the public that the depiction of the car surfing had the potential to influence viewers to do the same thing. While the depiction in the commercial itself was relatively harmless, in the real world car surfing is very dangerous and one mistake will almost certainly lead to serious injury or death. Even at low speeds, a car surfer can lose balance and fall awkwardly. A knock to the head can cause irreparable injury.
It is vital that all people, our youth in particular, are strongly discouraged from car surfing. There have been several car surfing incidents that have been reported in recent years in the local media in my electorate on the Sunshine Coast. On the weekend just passed, a young man from Landsborough became the victim of a similar situation. He had jumped onto the back of a slow-moving freight train to hitch a ride home late on Friday night. Tragically, as the train failed to slow down at his usual stop, he jumped off, he landed hard and he suffered fatal injuries. As a father, my heart goes out to the family of that young man.
Younger Australians will always be adventurous. They are enthusiastic about life. They are determined to experience new things and learn about life. The majority of them are living at home and are free of many of the burdens that come with raising a family and having to meet the demands of a mortgage. They are in the prime of their lives and enjoying all of the experiences that life has to offer, and of course that is the way that it should be. However, as I have said in this House on at least one previous occasion, our children do need the advice of parents to help guide them to become well developed, mature, adult citizens, but they also must be allowed to have their own experiences and make their own mistakes. Mistakes are perhaps the most important learning tool we have, though we do not enjoy making them. They help us develop and we often look back on our mistakes and give thanks for what we have learnt through them. But car surfing or train surfing are experiences we hope that people will not attempt.
We must sit down with young people and talk to them, explain the dangers, explain the physics, if we have to, of the human body being at the mercy of forces of motion and of gravity and let the tragedies of the past help us to teach young Australians that car surfing or train surfing is not cool, that it is dangerous and can be potentially fatal. The media—television shows, advertisements and even movies—must act responsibly and ban any portrayals of car surfing. The media is very influential but the influence must be for the good rather than irresponsible. Lives of young Australians depend on it.
Parenthood is perhaps the most difficult job in the world and, if that is not the case, it is certainly very close to the top of the list. It is important that the media outlets, which are entertaining our young people, are also mindful of the power that they have and ensure that they assign considerable importance to the needs of young Australians.
Younger Australians are an important section of the community on the Sunshine Coast, which is celebrating another successful Mooloolaba triathlon which occurred last Sunday. I know my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Fairfax, who is in the chair, also closely follows the Mooloolaba triathlon which used to be in his electorate previously. Sadly, neither the honourable member for Fairfax nor I had the opportunity of participating this year.
Shame.
It is a shame. It is one of those aspirational situations which, I suspect, will never come to fruition. This year the event again attracted some 3,000 competitors from those who are keen to take part in an exciting community event through to those professionals who live for the race and the spoils of victory. The lead-up to this year’s triathlon was one of most uncertain in the in the event’s 14-year history. The presence of Cyclone Wati off the Queensland coast had whipped up big seas and there was concern for the safety of competitors during the swim leg. Organisers instead decided to move the swim leg into the nearby Mooloolah River ensuring that it could all go ahead as planned without undue worry about the weather.
As it turned out, as is mostly the case in Queensland, the sun came out and the event was held on a glorious day. Media reports suggest that some 15,000 people came and lined the streets of Mooloolaba to watch the event. In fact the congestion was so bad it was difficult to get from some parts of the central Sunshine Coast to other parts of the coast. Many people were able to enjoy the coffee shops and restaurants along the esplanade and we, on the Sunshine Coast, are now privileged to have al fresco dining in so many areas. The restaurants and coffee shops are located adjacent to what is undoubtedly one of the best beaches in Australia.
The event itself is always very entertaining and this year’s event was no exception. The winner of the men’s race was New Zealand athlete Bevan Docherty, who had won a silver medal in the triathlon at Commonwealth Games in Melbourne just over a week before. After the race, Docherty admitted that he had felt like giving up midway through but his competitive edge drove him forward to victory. The women’s winner was Australia’s Annabel Luxford, who had also competed in the Commonwealth Games where she had finished fifth, a position that she herself was disappointed in. But her disappointment at the games was soon overshadowed by her wonderful win at Mooloolaba. As a result of her victory, she is now ranked No. 1 in the world. Both the winners took away $14,000 in prize money and Mooloolaba itself took away that sense of honour and pride when communities work together to stage a successful event. Organiser, Garth Proud of United Sports Marketing, should once again be congratulated, along with his team, for putting together such a world-class sports spectacular. The Mooloolaba triathlon delivers a massive windfall to the local tourism economy. It delivers a second time over through the worldwide broadcast of the event and the region on television. So many people in different parts of the world see the wonderful attractions that the Sunshine Coast has to offer and hopefully many people will come to our area as tourists when they get the opportunity.
I am very proud to be part of a community that so strongly supports its tourism industry. This is an industry that depends on visitors from Brisbane, which is just about an hour’s drive from the south, from interstate and from overseas. Figures from the hard-working Tourism Sunshine Coast organisation indicate that annual domestic visitors increased from around 2.5 million in June 2004 to 2.8 million in June last year. This is a rise of more than nine per cent. That is quite an outstanding result for the Sunshine Coast. Also, international visitors to the Sunshine Coast region increased from just under 230,000 in mid-2004 to almost 250,000 by June last year. This is an increase of some eight per cent.
I would like to see more of the international visitors who come to Queensland come to the Sunshine Coast. I do not think we are currently getting our fair share of the international market and we hope that that will improve in the future. There has been an increase of some 18,386 international visitors over that two-year period, which is a testament to Tourism Sunshine Coast and to the very many other tourism organisations in the area. The international visitors come mainly from New Zealand, with 34 per cent; athletes from New Zealand also make up a considerable proportion of entrants in the triathlon each year. The United Kingdom produces 23 per cent of local international visitors and Europe 17 per cent. Sporting events like the Mooloolaba triathlon that get international media coverage can only help to spread the word about the fantastic tourist attractions that the Sunshine Coast region has to offer. And I am anticipating more good things for tourism in my electorate and in the more general Sunshine Coast area in the months ahead.
Good things continue to come for the latest major tourist attraction to come to the Sunshine Coast, the ex HMAS Brisbane, which was sunk as a dive wreck last July off the Mooloolaba area. Very early on, dive operators reported a very high demand for visits to the vessel. Between 10,000 and 15,000 scuba tourists were initially expected to visit the wreck each year, and these figures have proven so far to be quite accurate. Two of the dive operators in my electorate are among those granted licences to make trips to the wreck. They are Mooloolaba based Sunreef Scuba Diving Services, owned by Greg Riddell and Paul White, and Scuba World, owned by Ian McKinnon. Again I pay tribute to the wonderful role played by these two businesses in helping to have the dive wreck sunk off the Sunshine Coast. They have reported that around 1,000 dive tourists visited the wreck each month during summer. Even though, in the colder months that have come, the number of visitors to the wreck has reduced somewhat, it is still around 800 per month. The spin-offs for the economy are expected to be around $40 million each year. I am particularly proud to have played a role in securing the vessel for the Sunshine Coast. It is, I am sure you would agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, a great privilege to serve the Sunshine Coast in the parliament of Australia.
I want to start by saying thank you to my fellow swimming team mates in the ALP swimming relay team today. While, sadly, we lost again, we did put in a wonderful effort in the pool today and all enjoyed it. Congratulations go to the press gallery. I do not know who those last two swimmers were, but at the end they pipped the Liberal team, who were actually doing a fantastic job—until those last two swimmers dived into the pool and took away their victory.
On a very different note of far more serious proportions, I want to talk about jobs and the lack of job security in our community nowadays. I want to talk about this government, who are proclaiming that they are creating a record number of jobs. They are creating more jobs than we can even fill, because they are importing skilled migrants, and nowadays even unskilled migrants, to fill these huge numbers of jobs that we have out in the community! The government are also claiming that the IR reforms taking effect from today will create yet more jobs. I find this a startling claim—that somehow, by being able to sack people more easily, this will create more jobs. I have never been able to see how you can correlate the loss of a job with the creation of a job. It seems slightly iniquitous to me.
We in this community face a challenge. The challenge is the government. It is the biggest threat to Australian workers, their jobs and their job security in this nation’s history. The Howard government’s policies, particularly its extreme industrial relations laws, are turning job security into a thing of the past. They are also turning job creation into a thing of the past. The IR laws slipped in in the dead of night, with 1,800 pages of regulations that the minister slipped in on 19 March 2006—when a real sporting event was happening, the marathon at the Commonwealth Games. That was definitely Kerryn McCann’s day, where coming into the MCG she held off and, lifted by the Australian crowd, pipped the Kenyan runner. It was a thrilling final; it was an amazing piece of athleticism.
Two minutes or so after this wonderful event happened down at the great MCG, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations released a massive pile of detailed regulations and some changes to the laws that we had passed in this parliament already. Admittedly, he had waited until after the state elections in South Australia and Tasmania. Sadly, this obviously did not help his Liberal colleagues in those environments. He waited until that was over and, on that great day of Kerryn McCann’s race and victory, he slipped in legislation so complex, so difficult that people in workplaces across the country, including employers, are going to be ripping their hair out trying to work out how to implement it all.
Yesterday the new IR laws commenced. Families in Chisholm are afraid, and they have good reason to be. One of the first examples of a company trying to use the government’s IR laws to strip wages, rights and entitlements is Dana automotive systems in Clayton, within my electorate of Chisholm. It has presented unions with a 41-point blueprint in its latest EB negotiations which would cut the wages of existing workers by five per cent, put new employees on wages 20 per cent lower than their current rates, abolish rostered days off, cut redundancy and long service leave and force workers to take holidays when their employers want them to. This is the first action that I have seen within my electorate.
It has been revealed that point 2 of the 41-point negotiation is a clause that will in effect turn the collective contracts into individual contracts. The union had simply asked for a rollover of the current EB with a modest pay rise. They asked for no additional entitlements. They just wanted a modest pay rise, in line with the current CPI indexation. Dana had agreed to this and have agreed to this for their employees in New South Wales, but they are not going to provide it to their factory workers in Victoria. Why? We can only think that the workers in Victoria, particularly at the Clayton plant, are predominantly from non-English-speaking backgrounds and are not proficient in English and perhaps Dana think that they will get away with cutting the wages of these employees.
The staff at Clayton have for years used their annual leave when business is slowing down. They have predominantly used up their annual leave because Dana has said to its workers time and again: ‘You help us and we’ll help you.’ In the past, employees have been happy to take their leave in a downturn. Now they are feeling especially hurt and angry at Dana’s proposal. Dana makes suspension and underbody component parts within my electorate. It is part of the manufacturing base that is currently dwindling. As I have said time and again, if I were a regional entity I would probably be getting a rescue package. But, as I am in the burbs and I represent people in the suburbs, very little is being done about the loss of manufacturing jobs within my electorate.
The enterprise bargaining agreement at Dana expires on 1 April. Until that time, no action can be taken. The workers at Dana are feeling very vulnerable. We read today on the front page of the Age that they have discovered a bug, a listening device, in the office of the union delegate at one of Dana’s other plants. In the midst of all this terror and confusion, a bug, a listening device, has been planted in the office of the union delegate. So conversations have been recorded. The police are currently investigating how that device got to be there.
In my electorate, workers are scared, workers are worried, and they have a right to be. It is not just the ALP that has been saying this. Justice Giudice, who is probably not a great friend of the ALP—or we have never thought so in the past—stated on 16 March:
I think one of the most important issues involved with Work Choices is the reduction of the safety net for the purpose of the no disadvantage test for collective and individual agreements.
That could have a significant effect on the incomes of the lowest paid in our community.
I can assure you it’s going to affect our society.
People with low skill levels, low bargaining power, are heading for the Fair Pay and Conditions Standard, which will have an effect on their incomes.
This will be accompanied by a slowdown in the rate of growth of minimum wages—that’s what the Fair Pay Commission is for.
If those things are going to occur, they’ll probably have to be accompanied by a reduction in social welfare, otherwise the incentive to work will reduce.
... I don’t want to leave you in any doubt that these are very significant changes.
He also said that the absence of protection for collective bargaining rights was ‘a potential area of real conflict and real difficulty’. So the current head of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has real concerns about the Work Choices legislation that has just come into effect.
In my electorate of Chisholm, as I have said, manufacturing is on the decline. I have seen plant after plant close. In many cases it is the government’s lack of policy that has led to severe job losses. The government’s neglect of our manufacturing industry has seen a loss of 145,000 manufacturing jobs since the government came to office. Since the government’s re-election in 2004, more than 60,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector have been axed. With this industrial relations law, the manufacturing sector are going to somehow race to the bottom by ensuring that all manufacturing workers, low-skilled workers, in my electorate are going to be on lower wages. Somehow that will help us compete with India and China. It is a ridiculous statement. Why aren’t we racing to the top? Why aren’t we racing to the top in ensuring that we are skilling up, looking for innovation and high value added products? No, we are racing to the bottom.
The government has failed to come up with a plan to keep our manufacturing sector alive. According to the March quarter Australian Industry Group PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of Australian manufacturing, parts of the manufacturing industry are experiencing a recession. The problem is having a devastating impact in the communities across Australia, including communities in my electorate of Chisholm.
Last November, a few weeks out from Christmas, Silcraft, an automotive component producer at Mount Waverley, axed 460 jobs. For those 460 families, it was the worst Christmas present they could have. The sale of Telstra is going to affect my electorate where 500 jobs at the call centre in Burwood are under threat. I have not been able to get a guarantee from anyone—from the call centre; from the minister—that they will be protected. The National Relay Service in my electorate, which provides a sterling service for the hearing impaired over the phone, is also feeling very nervous not knowing what is happening to its contract renewal. There are 70 people at that service who provide a fantastic job relaying messages to the hearing impaired. They do not know whether their jobs are going to go or be there.
The government has totally neglected the manufacturing sector. This IR legislation is not going to improve it in any way, shape, size or form. And if we listen to the words of Senator Minchin, who was probably recorded unknowingly, this is only the beginning of the end. (Time expired)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to bring to your attention and to the attention of the House a dishonest campaign which continues in my electorate of Bass in northern Tasmania, the best electorate in Australia. Yesterday a very unusual advertisement with the title ‘Work Choices’ appeared in Launceston’s daily newspaper, the Examiner. In short, it was a mocked-up Australian workplace agreement with my name on it as a member of the House of Representatives employed by the so-called company ‘Electors of Bass Pty Ltd’.
Interestingly, the premise of the text suggested that I would begin an AWA from that day concluding on the date of the next federal election. It read:
... as of Monday the 27th March 2006, the new industrial relations laws that you voted for come into place. As such we, as your constituents, offer you the following individual contracts—
sic—
so that you can lead the way in embracing these new laws that allows employers to strip away workers’ pay and conditions.
It then goes on to list an offer for me, including salary, sick leave, and hours worked. Finally, the ad claimed to make out a list of work related entitlements which all federal politicians receive. The implication was that I would have these taken away from me from the said date.
There are many things I could say about this political advertisement. For a start, even though the ad is intended to be a sarcastic document, it contains many errors. I do not earn anywhere near the stated hourly rate even if I did only work eight hours per day, which I exceed by double incidentally. I am unable to tell you who wrote the ad, who paid for it or who placed it. Interestingly, no-one had seen fit to authorise it or put their name to it at all. But I tell you this: it is just another example of the hysterical, misleading and malicious campaign which is being waged all around Australia by powerful, wealthy unions with vested political interests.
I am sorry to disappoint those who have chosen to become my enemy in my work on behalf of the people of Bass. I will not be reacting to their silly and dishonest tactics. In giving this speech tonight, one thing I do not seek to achieve is a personal defence. This is not about me. The unions’ smear tactics are very disappointing because of the deceit and half-truths that people are being forced to endure.
I feel sad and disappointed at the alarm that has been caused among ordinary, everyday people. I am angry that good, hard-working people in my community are being lied to by unions and ALP politicians who care only about their own existence and their manipulation of public feeling. If I were hearing only this one side of the debate, I too would be worried and anxious. If I were an age pensioner being told that my pension would fall over time, I would be upset. If I were a shift worker who relies on penalty rates for overtime being told that I was about to lose those penalty rates, I would be concerned. If I were a young person at a school being told that I would be bullied into signing away decent working conditions when I entered the workforce, I would be fearful. If I were a trustworthy and hard-working employee in a Launceston bakery being told that I should expect to be sacked for no reason, I too would be very concerned about the direction of this government. The fact is that none of the scenarios that I have described are valid, but we have heard them all from the unions and the ALP.
I have spoken in this place before about the Work Choices bill, which has now become law, and I have talked about the need for reform, the need for more flexibility in the workplace, the need to make it easier for employers to create more jobs, and, importantly, the need for proper minimum conditions in order to protect Australians from being exploited. No-one in any union and no-one in any opposition party has challenged the contents of that speech. No-one has attacked me in the media for saying things that are not true, as could have been expected if I had been less than honest. That speech was given nearly five months ago, with no protest as to my points of view or the good reasons underlying the reforms.
I think that every member of this parliament ought to answer this basic question and then live by their answer: do or do not the Australian people deserve enough respect to be told the truth—the whole truth—about this legislation? I refer to yesterday’s newspaper advertisement and the campaign in general when I say, ‘Judge me on my record and my commitment to the electorate and to the people of Bass.’ Because, without question, and like most of my parliamentary colleagues from all parties, I work long and irregular hours to do the job to the best of my ability. Everywhere that I go, people observe that, in my short time as the member for Bass, I have achieved more in less than a couple of years than the previous member did in six years.
The advertisement says that my AWA will finish at the 2007 federal election. I can only say to that that I absolutely agree. You see, my contract is with the people of Bass and it will end at that time. With good faith, I will ask the people of Bass to renew my contract because I am their hard-working, honest representative whose daily mission is to make life better for people and their families. I am proud about that. Unlike some politicians, I do not regard my position as one that I can or should take for granted; neither do I think that people can, just by clever campaigning and with the effective use of words, win elections forever. You have to work hard, you have to take decisions in good conscience and you have to remain accountable to your community.
This is, of course, not about me, even though the unions are making every effort to make it a very personal smear campaign. This is, in fact, about the collective hysteria that the union movement in this country is using to scare people into believing things that are not true. I could read out a long list of the many statements which have been made about how the sky will fall and how the world will come to an end, but time does not permit me. But I will pick out a couple: there will be more divorce, children will not be able to go on holidays, this issue is bigger than two world wars, living standards will fall and the age pension will decrease. All these assertions are not only wrong, misleading and juvenile but in many cases they are downright offensive. How dare the union movement and the ALP go about scaring people in this way.
The truth is that Work Choices will actually move Australia toward one simple national system of workplace relations. It will mean more job opportunities and greater workplace flexibility. As a matter of fact, Work Choices will be of particular benefit to people living in regional areas like those in my federal electorate of Bass. The unions are targeting and attacking people like me in marginal seats simply because we are marginal seat holders. I say as well that I have a good idea of who is leading the campaign locally and I know them to be quite a dishonest person. I also know that, although they are a paid employee of the unions, they are a former ALP staff member, but I do not propose to name them today. That is not my way. It is not personal; it should be about the issue.
Let me say this: let the future prove these people wrong. My electors are not stupid, and they consistently say that they do not appreciate dishonest scare campaigns as a means of manipulating them at the ballot box. I look forward to the day when the ardent critics of this legislation will have to acknowledge that they were wrong. Australians will now be able to watch the economy grow even further as it benefits from this necessary economic reform—especially regions such as northern Tasmania. When we see the proof of the obvious benefits to the people of Australia, I will be calling these doomsayers to account. I will ask them to explain why they opposed economic growth which results in better living conditions for everyday Australians. I will ask them why they felt the need to frighten Australian families. On behalf of the people of Bass, if given that opportunity, I will be demanding a retraction of their lies and an unconditional apology.
In closing, I simply issue the following challenge. If the union-ALP political partnership—and that is what it is—wants to focus at the next election in 2007 on moral character, honesty, job security and employment growth, I say: bring it on. I am proud of what the Howard government has been able to achieve for Australia, and I am very proud to have been a part of it. I look forward to its response.
Two weeks ago, the world remembered the second anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the trains in Madrid, Spain, that occurred on 11 March 2004. Those attacks killed 190 people and injured more than 1,500. Yesterday, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, and the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, spoke about the horrible public transport attacks in Madrid, and in London on 7 July last year.
The Madrid attacks were the deadliest assault by a terrorist organisation against civilians in Europe since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. The Madrid attacks saw 10 bombs explode on four trains in three stations during rush hour. The Blair government have instigated a series of initiatives to shore up what has been a robust UK land transport security system. Sadly, no similar security improvements have been implemented by the Howard government. The Howard government have been on notice for the last two years that urgent rail security reforms are required. This is a national issue. Responding to the threat of terrorism requires all governments to play a role. But at its core, responsibility for security against terrorists rests with the Commonwealth. We need national leadership, a national land transport security plan and a national security standard.
The Howard government have put more effort into political spin than into practical solutions. They have been more interested in media conferences than meaningful security reforms. Labor’s blueprint on security takes transport security seriously. In July 2005, Labor spelled out a $30 million funding initiative for rail security. That pool of funding included dramatically increasing the use and availability of closed circuit televisions and also the much wider use of explosive sniffer dogs. An important part of land transport, particularly rail security, also involves new design requirements for rail carriages and stations to minimise black spots and areas where bombs may be concealed.
Where Labor has a blueprint to improve transport security, the Howard government has media advisers. I will have more to say about rail security at another time. In the short time available in the adjournment debate today, I want to turn my attention to a more urgent situation that is of greater concern—that is, the porous northern borders of Australia. Last year over 8,000 illegal vessels were sighted operating in Australian northern waters but there were only 280 apprehended in Northern Australia. Those 8,000 sightings no doubt may include some double counting. However, it is by no means an exaggeration. No-one asserts that we sight all illegal boats; clearly we do not. In fact, 8,000 is, by most estimates, well below the actual figure of illegal vessels entering our northern waters. Whilst our surveillance needs to be improved, our nation’s capacity to deal with the incursions needs major improvement. With at least 8,000 incursions the government managed to apprehend just 280. The odds are heavily in favour of the illegal fishers, the criminals and the people smugglers. This presents a range of extremely serious problems. On 14 February this year at Senate estimates the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz, conceded:
... if a disease were to come to Australia courtesy of one of these boats ... the national interest could really be at stake, as a result of which I think we need a holistic approach to this. It is more than just the fishery ... there are consequences even for security.
He was absolutely right, but in a moment of honesty uncharacteristic of this government, Minister Abetz then admitted:
... we need a more whole-of-government approach. I think we are heading in the right direction but we need to do more.
Dead right, Minister; the government does need to do more. A whole-of-government approach is not simply setting up more interdepartmental committees. It requires one minister with clear responsibility—not at least three, which is the case under the government’s present structure. It requires one department, not about a dozen different agencies across three or four departments that operate currently under the Howard government’s approach to border security and homeland security. Therein lies the answer: to do more, to have a whole-of-government approach, does indeed require the establishment of a national homeland security department.
The threat from government incompetence in securing our northern borders is far more serious than even Minister Abetz let on at the Senate estimates in February. In the waters immediately to our north-west, near Indonesia and in the Malacca Straits, piracy is a weekly event. More than anywhere else on the planet, shipping in these waters is threatened by piracy and even hijacking on a weekly basis. The most recent figures produced just at the end of last year for 2004 tell us that there were 93 piracy attacks in those waters during 2004. Very alarmingly, al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups, like Abu Sayyaf, Gerekan Aceh Merdeka and Jemmaah Islamiyah, all operate in those regions and no doubt have the capability to conduct maritime terrorism. Indeed, Osama bin Laden’s family business interests included maritime assets. It would be foolish not to accept that a capacity exists amongst that terrorist network to take control and operate major vessels.
In spite of the government having the power to require all ships coming to Australian ports to identify their crew and cargo, the government actually allows foreign vessels to ignore that requirement. In any event, even when the information is provided by the ship’s master, the Australian government makes no effort to confirm that the crew is who it claims to be. On top of all of that, the government hands out single-voyage permits like they are weekly chook raffle tickets so that flag of convenience ships can carry dangerous chemicals around the coastline of Australia from port to port with impunity and without security vetting.
At the end of last year, the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, and I went to Gladstone to focus attention on one of those ships that was carrying 30,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, a highly explosive precursor chemical known to be used by terrorists—a favoured chemical for terrorists around the world and used by the al-Qaeda network on a number of occasions—and recognised as such by the Australian and state governments that have legislated to control it. Yet the government wilfully allows flag of convenience vessels to carry extraordinarily large amounts of this dangerous chemical into Australian ports without so much as checking who the crew of the vessel is.
Australia desperately needs a coastguard if we are to properly protect our northern maritime borders. That has been part of Labor’s national security blueprint for years. It is more essential now than ever. At the moment, there is a very innovative and worthwhile group of Aboriginal sea rangers doing a great job in filling some of the gaps left by this government. The Djelk sea rangers patrol coastal waters off the Northern Territory coast, including the Liverpool estuary, the Blythe River and Rolling Bay. They monitor infringements by commercial fishers, identify and clean up beach litter and observe activities that need to be reported Customs, quarantine and fisheries.
An SBS program, the Living Black, featured the Djelk Aboriginal sea rangers and their work. That program raised further concerns about the failures of this government in protecting our northern borders. In that episode, the rangers found an illegal vessel stuck in the sand. They contacted Coastwatch, the police and Customs. Overworked and under-resourced Customs staff were not able to respond for more than 12 hours. The rangers offered to intervene, but that offer was refused, despite Customs being too busy to do the work themselves. The illegal fishing vessel slipped away from Customs—another opportunity missed by the Howard government. That is one of a number of examples of that kind that can be cited.
The Howard government do not have a comprehensive plan for fighting terrorism. Their tactic has been to alarm Australians and talk tough. That is not a substitute for well-thought through policies implemented in a focused and comprehensive way by a dedicated department charged especially with that vital task. The Liberal government and its members like talking about terrorists. They play the politics of the debate, but they fail to implement meaningful and effective security measures.
The more serious dilemma that is presented to Australians now is the need for the government to refocus its attention and to adopt Labor’s policy in relation to the establishment of a homeland security department and, in relation to the north, to establish a meaningful coastguard.
I rise today to speak in relation to the state of the Northern Territory health system. It is great cause for concern. It is a system that I feel I have to raise in this adjournment debate this afternoon. The Northern Territory health system, run by the Labor administration, is in a critical and unstable condition, despite enormous financial support from the federal government, and has been a staple media headline for months now. The common diagnosis, it seems, is that the Territory is currently plagued by a full-blown raging epidemic. It is not a mutant virus affecting the Territory, though; it is a sick and failing government that must be revived. The fact is, the only reason the hospital system has not totally failed yet is because of the gargantuan efforts of the health professionals who have gone above and beyond their call of duty.
And federal government money.
And federal government money. In 2001, two major planks of Clare Martin’s ALP election promises were to reduce waiting lists and to provide an oncology unit for Territorians. Not only have they failed in this regard, but waiting lists are now double what they were when the Northern Territory Labor government came to office. Now they are calling on the federal government to provide even more funding for an oncology unit that they promised. The minister, Dr Peter Toyne, on receiving the health portfolio—after the earlier Labor minister was sacked in December 2003—declared that—
Why was the minister sacked?
She was hopeless. He declared that he would bring the hospital system into an orderly state. Within weeks of that, he announced that he was giving serious thought to retiring from politics. In June 2005, as part of the Martin Labor government’s election campaign, the health minister promised that another 48 beds would be provided to Northern Territory hospitals. None of these will be delivered before 2008, with 16 being delivered in 2008 and the rest being delivered in 2009. By July 2005, we discovered the problem of a growing waiting list for elective surgery, with one patient who required a hip replacement having his surgery deferred six times in the previous 12 months.
How many times?
It was deferred six times in 12 months. Over the Christmas and New Year period of 2005-06, across the Territory emergency departments had queues of patients waiting for treatments and admissions to wards. Some patients were waiting on trolleys in corridors for up to four days, and some of them did not even get admitted to the wards but instead were treated in the emergency department over several days and then discharged.
It sounds like Third World or Queensland hospitals.
It is very similar to Queensland hospitals. By January 2006, the health system under Minister Peter Toyne and the health department CEO, Mr Robert Griew, was at a crisis point with the emergency department unable to cope with the numbers and with shortages of staff. Those who are there frequently work double shifts and up to three weeks straight without any time off. Since Clare Martin came to power, the numbers on waiting lists for elective surgery have gone from around 1,000 to around 3,000, and there has been a recruitment of St John’s Ambulance paramedics to fill nursing roles and they are rostered in the emergency department on their days off. In February 2006, a patient with a blockage in his throat was made to wait for nearly a day on a trolley in a corridor to have that blockage removed. In fact, the man was told to drink Coca-Cola to fix his problem.
Only last week the federal government stepped in and bailed the Northern Territory government out of trouble by throwing them a lifeline by finalising arrangements—
Why not throw them out of office.
They deserve to be thrown out of office, but the federal government threw them a lifeline by arranging for the funding for the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre to go ahead at Royal Darwin Hospital. I make the point again that the only reason I can see that the health system has not failed is through the very hard efforts of the health professionals who are holding the flag of this floundering health system.
All of us remember that the Royal Darwin Hospital played a pivotal role in treating large numbers of casualties from the Bali bombings. The work of medical and other staff was magnificent under the direction of Dr Didier Palmer. While the trauma centre is designed to ensure Australia has an effective capacity to receive and treat casualties should there be another terrorist attack or a natural disaster, importantly, though, it will also be used on a day-to-day basis by the people of the Northern Territory. It is worth while here extending my many thanks to the Royal Darwin Hospital general manager Dr Robin Michael, medical superintendent Dr Len Notaras, and Dr Didier Palmer and his colleague Dr Dianne Stephens, who are the joint directors of the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital.
The lifeline that the federal government has thrown to the Territory government will offer immediate assistance to the NT health system, reactivating five operating theatres and establishing another 10 beds in the emergency care unit. A close eye will be kept on how the $66 million will be spent. I am advised that there will be big consequences if there is any cost shifting at all by the Martin government in the Northern Territory.
Is it Australian government money?
It is Australian government money, and we are keeping a very close eye on the Northern Territory government to make sure that they do not siphon off funds from this critical project.
Have they done it before?
They have done it in a whole range of areas. If the member for Fisher keeps interrupting me like this, I will not get through what I have to say!
They are supportive questions.
They are supportive questions, of course. Meanwhile, Dr Peter Toyne and Clare Martin keep promising to do better and keep reassuring Territorians that an oncology unit is in the pipeline, but they have not delivered this in spite of budget allocations to fund the establishment of a unit at RDH. The Martin Labor government promised $14 million for an oncology unit, and it has not seen the light of day. Now we are told by the health minister in the Northern Territory that it is not viable. It appears that the minister is oblivious to the 250 patients who have to travel interstate for cancer treatment. These patients have lived in the hope that the Labor government will deliver the oncology unit each year for the last five years but to no avail.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome wholeheartedly to the NT two recently appointed cancer clinicians who support patients with cancer. They are oncologist Dr Matthew George and cancer support nurse Ms Nicole Robert. I sincerely hope they will want to stay in the Top End and I implore the NT government to support them. Dr Sid Selva left after 13 years of service as the oncologist at Royal Darwin Hospital because he felt totally betrayed by the Northern Territory government’s failure to keep their promise. I hope we do not face the same situation with the two new clinicians.
I would like to acknowledge a number of extremely important and well respected people and agencies that are relentlessly fighting for the best treatment and care for cancer patients in the Northern Territory: Helen Smith and the NT Cancer Council; Michelle Hanton, Breast Cancer Voice and Dragons Abreast; and Martha Swart and the NT Palliative Care Association, just to name a few. I share their spirit for the fight against cancer. I know how important it is for Territorians to have an oncology unit. I am here to tell the parliament that I am fighting hard down here at the moment to see whether the federal government can supply some resources to see this oncology unit become a reality in the Northern Territory. (Time expired)
Question negatived.
Debate resumed from 16 February, on motion by Mr Ruddock:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment (Fees and Charges) Bill 2006 changes the manner in which fees and charges are set for services provided by the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia, otherwise known as ITSA. Fees and charges for ITSA services are currently contained in the Bankruptcy Act and bankruptcy regulations.
The clock shows that she has 59 minutes to speak.
It is very difficult. The member for Fisher prides himself on this interactive debate.
The member for Fisher will allow the member for Gellibrand to be heard in silence.
Even with his best endeavours the member for Fisher would find it hard to make this bill an exceptionally interesting one. But, if the member for Fisher can intervene sufficiently for me to fulfil 59 minutes—
You do have 59 minutes and 38 seconds.
and 38 seconds, that is fine. I know that the member for Flinders is keen to make his contribution too. No doubt he will rise to the challenge—
Order! There is a technical problem with the clock.
of his old debating days and fill an hour with great ease. We will no doubt have traversed every individual’s bankruptcy application by the time we get through those. I might say for the benefit of the timekeepers that it is most unlikely that I will be speaking for 30 minutes let alone the 60 minutes that I have been given. So I do not think there is any need to worry about the technical problems we seem to be having in the chamber.
This bill relates to a specialised area. When I made the joke in passing with the member for Fisher that it might be hard to speak on it for such an extended time, that was not to downplay the importance of making some of these changes and ensuring that our insolvency and trustee system works properly and, of course, that the fees and charges are changed by virtue of this bill in an appropriate way.
The fees and charges that are made for ITSA services are currently contained in the Bankruptcy Act and in bankruptcy regulations. Under the proposed new framework that is part of this bill the fees and charges will be determined by the Attorney-General through legislative instrument. We believe that this is an appropriate change given that ITSA is moving to a cost recovery model of funding. But of course under any cost recovery model it is important to ensure that the fees and charges are set at a cost recovery point and do not increase. If we do not make sure that this is the case, we will find that what should be cost recovery becomes some type of backdoor tax.
The ITSA model for cost recovery, which we understand to have been developed in consultation with stakeholders, will involve a biennial review of fees and charges. Legislative instrument is an appropriately flexible method to ensure that the recommendations of these biennial reviews can be quickly adopted. The use of legislative instrument, importantly, still provides parliament with a mechanism to disallow any increase in fees, so it does not entail a substantial loss of scrutiny. I would like to take the opportunity in speaking in the chamber in this debate to encourage and invite insolvency practitioners, small businesses and other stakeholders to ensure that they contact us if they ever feel that ITSA’s fees and charges are spiralling out of control. We will be keen to take up this issue in this place at a later time, when each legislative instrument is before the parliament, if we find that ITSA, or the amount of fees and charges, is moving beyond cost recovery to something which is more aggressive.
It is of course one of parliament’s most ancient and important tasks to prevent unjustified imposts being imposed by the government. Labor are committed to our job of holding the government to account for any attempt at backdoor taxation. We are comfortable with the model that is proposed. We think that it is appropriate that the legislative instruments, obviously, will be disallowable in the parliament. And I use this opportunity to encourage people to come forward if they ever feel in the future that these fees and charges are getting out of sync with the cost recovery model. They should make sure that they talk to us and use the parliament and their representatives to ensure that these rates are being set at an appropriate level.
ITSA has been moving to a cost recovery process for several years now, and the details were included in the papers for the 2005-06 budget. Under the proposed funding model, the cost of some services will be recovered through a fee payable by the person receiving the service, while others will be paid through an industry levy. The bill will allow the following fees and charges to be set by the Attorney-General: fees to the official trustee for acting as trustee, controlling trustee or administrator; fees to the official receiver for exercising power at the request of a trustee; fees for access to bankruptcy documents by persons who are not creditors or debtors of a bankrupt; fees associated with registration as a registered trustee; fees relating to the National Personal Insolvency Index; and the rate at which realisation charge is payable. The realisation charge is a levy imposed on trustees. We understand that the government’s intention is to set this at a level high enough to cover the costs of the regulation of practitioners, investigations of bankruptcy fraud and administration of assetless estates. Certain services will remain wholly Commonwealth funded, including processing debtors’ petitions and debt agreement proposals.
As I mentioned earlier, the fees and charges will be subject to a review every two years or sooner if required. These reviews are to involve stakeholder consultation, and we urge the government to make sure that it continues to involve stakeholders in these processes. Labor supports the shift to cost recovery in this bill to enable that shift. However, we will keep a close eye on developments to ensure that we have cost recovery and no more. We look forward to working with the stakeholders to make sure that the government engages in genuine consultation and to hold the government to account for any unjustifiable increases if we are in that position in the future.
In addition to providing the framework for the transition to cost recovery, the bill also makes two other changes: a change in the period for payment of realisation charges and interest charges from twice yearly to annually, and amending provisions related to forms to allow greater use of electronic service delivery. These also seem to be sensible changes that will improve the operation of our bankruptcy system. For these reasons, Labor are pleased to offer our support for the bill.
I rise to speak on the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment (Fees and Charges) Bill 2006. I thank the member for Gellibrand for her characteristically eloquent contribution, although it was an uncharacteristically uncharitable contribution when she described the bill as being less than riveting. It does in many ways represent an important development, and I am sure that practitioners in the field will be enthused, excited and enlightened by its introduction and passage.
In short, the bill facilitates the implementation of the government’s cost recovery policy in providing personal insolvency services. It comes as a result of extensive consultation and as a result of a cost recovery review. It is very significant to note that further consultations will occur as the bill is implemented and as part of an ongoing structure of assessment, review and refinement. So there has been consultation and there will continue to be consultation.
In particular, the amendments proposed in this bill will allow the government to progress financial policy through the creation of legislative instruments at the appropriate time. In practice, this will provide a flexible and accountable way of reflecting the costs of providing personal insolvency services to the community. In addition, the bill contains other amendments which will enhance the delivery of personal insolvency services, including effective electronic service delivery, and there are some minor technical amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
The member for Gellibrand raised one clear point—the notion that the provisions in the bill should apply only to the notion of cost recovery and that they should not form the basis for the levying of an effective tax by stealth. We on the government side absolutely agree. We believe that there are adequate safeguards. We will oversee and enforce them rigorously, and without fear or favour. So the point that has been made is legitimate and fair: this should be a cost recovery measure; cost recovery should be full but it should not be excessive. We accept that proposition. It underpins the very philosophy with which we are proceeding. We have made sure that there are adequate safeguards in place. We will oversee them, and we will enforce them rigorously. So I accept those points that were made by the member for Gellibrand.
I thank both the member for Gellibrand and other members who have had input into the bill, not just through the course of the debate but through the course of preparation. I also thank all of those members of the financial services community who have had input into the drafting and preparation of the bill. In particular, I thank the officers of the Attorney-General’s Department for their role in helping to develop this legislation. I thank all of those involved in the preparation of the bill and in the debate, and I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 2 March, on motion by Mr Lloyd:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Ripoll moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:
Before the debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 was interrupted I was talking about the flag of convenience ships flagged in Antigua, with an unvetted foreign crew, carrying the highly dangerous cargo of ammonium nitrate from Newcastle to Gladstone. If that cargo was carried by road or rail, strict regulations would apply to ensure the safety and security of the Australian public. But there are no such controls when cargo of this type is carried into and out of our sea ports—none at all. The government allows foreign crews to work unchecked on our coastline, often for many months at a time—something that would never be tolerated in the land transport system, nor indeed in the air transport system.
This bill increases the amount of compensation payable for the damage caused by the spillage of oil from ships. Labor, of course, supports that measure. The bill makes provision for the establishment of a fund to supplement compensation when the full amount owed is unable to be obtained from the tanker owner. The fund is financed by a levy on the industry, and Labor supports that measure too. The bill significantly increases the limits on liabilities by about 50 per cent. This is consistent with the resolution of the International Maritime Organisation and it also has Labor’s support. The bill expands the definition of ‘plastic’ so that there is an absolute prohibition on ships disposing of incinerator ashes from plastic products which may contain toxic or heavy metal residues into the ocean. Again, this provision has Labor’s support.
When an industry is responsible for damage in the environment, that industry should pay for it. If the industry causes damage to our pristine coastline, it should be held responsible for the clean-up. I do not think that many would argue with this principle, and it is good to see it being applied in the industry. I look forward to the government increasing the fines and to the level of compensation being updated regularly, to keep the incentives strong for careful behaviour. I would like to see this principle applied to many other industries as well.
In this regard, I draw your attention to the commendable work of Robert Kennedy Jr in the clean-up and protection of New York City waterways over the past few decades. Robert Kennedy Jr is a son of assassinated Senator Robert Kennedy, and he was in Australia last year to talk about his work. The Riverkeeper movement, as it was called, was started on New York’s Hudson River in 1966, by a group called the ‘coalition of commercial and recreational fishermen to reclaim the Hudson River from the polluters’. It has been extremely successful in legal action against the polluters of waterways not only in New York but right across the USA. I note that Riverkeeper branches have started up in Australia.
Labor supports protection of the environment and is pleased to see that the maritime industry will be required to take greater responsibility for any environmental damage it causes. But while this is a commendable principle and has Labor’s support, I point out that the bill before us does absolutely nothing to strengthen the maritime industry in this country—absolutely nothing. It seems that that task is not even on the government’s radar. Yet government assistance to support the industry is very much needed.
Let me point out some unsavoury facts about the shipping industry in this country. Australian registered and crewed vessels have been steadily diminishing over the past 15 years, and flags of convenience vessels are prevalent on the Australian coast. Single-voyage permits and continuous voyage permits are issued to flags of convenience vessels where Australian vessels are not available. However, this provision is not monitored, is constantly abused, and available Australian vessels are regularly passed over.
Australia does not now have any vessels in the container line trade, apart from Bass Strait services to Tasmania. Australian vessels in the liquid natural gas trade to Japan are under threat, as is any involvement of Australia’s shipping in the flurry of new gas deals with China. In fact, Australian shipping has been reduced to its involvement with bulk commodities, like iron ore, coal, bauxite and gypsum, around our own coast. This means that opportunities for Australians in the maritime industry are severely restricted. Most potential and past merchant seamen are now forced to find work in the offshore oil and gas industry.
There is a real need for an Australian shipping policy. Without it, the industry will continue to wither. One wonders why any national government would willingly allow one of its fundamental industries to wane. It is simply irresponsible. It seems the Howard government is content to let Australian shipping simply disappear while exploited Third World seafarers work the vessels, entering our ports and transporting our cargo. It seems that the government is requiring that Australian seafarers either work for Third World wages or they do not work at all. This threatens the livelihood of our seafarers, and it seems to be a scheme in which the Howard government is shamefully complicit.
I mentioned a company called Destiny Abalone, currently located near Wallaroo in South Australia’s Spencer Gulf. In September last year, it made its Australian crew redundant and replaced it with a crew from China and the Ukraine. The purpose was simply to replace Australian seafarers with foreign seafarers on reduced wages and conditions. The replacement of Australian crews with cheaper labour on temporary visas is an issue that must be brought to the public’s attention. Of course, it has been recently, with workers being used in South Australia in the car industry and a whole range of other industries. Then there is the case of the Mawashi Al Gasseem, a Kuwaiti registered, 30-year-old livestock carrier. This vessel was retained for many months last year at Port Adelaide’s Outer Harbour, not far from where I lived. I could see it every morning. After being arrested by the fuel supplier OW Bunker over a $US700,000 debt, it owed its crew of 63 Filipinos and six Indians in excess of $US450,000 in wages.
The Maritime Union of Australia sought to stop the humiliation and the abuse of these Third World seafarers on this vessel. It obtained legal representation for the crew and had a caveat put on the vessel on the crew’s behalf. The vessel was eventually sold. As a result of the union’s work, the crew were paid the wages that they were owed. I commend the work of the Maritime Union, particularly the South Australian branch, which is located in my seat of Port Adelaide, and Jamie Newlyn for the good work on behalf of their seafarer colleagues. I also commend members of the local community who did so much to look after those seafarers. The effort took significant time and resources, but it yielded a very satisfactory outcome, although a lengthy one.
However, it remains a disgrace, an absolute bloody disgrace, that the government has allowed the shipping industry in this country to come to this. So far the only shipping industry policy the government has had—and I am sorry to say it this way—is to put the rottweilers on the wharves and lock out workers. This government has presented nothing in the way of support for the industry. It seems that there is only one strategy and that is to drive costs down, with a consequence of that strategy being to shut down the industry in this country and hand it over to foreign shipping owners and crews. We do not seem to have the same attitude to Singapore Airlines, do we? Why is that? It is a strategy that is driving the Australian shipping industry aground. Its future without sensible government support is bleak. That means that the futures of Australian families and communities, which rely on the industry, are also bleak. This is what is happening in the maritime industry today. Unfortunately, it is no good looking to the government for help. It is complicit in this arrangement to replace Australian workers with overseas labour. Australian shipping does not need a handout to survive. It can survive and thrive with just a fair go and with the support of a government showing some interest in the future.
The government’s preparedness to sell out Australian shipping is economically foolish. It is also very foolish on national security, and is yet another example of blind ideology driving the government, against all reason and against the national interest. We have a large coastline. It is very hard to monitor and defend. We were shown this weakness in our merchant navy. There was a failure to recognise the importance of what the merchant navy did in the Second World War. There was a blindness to the inability to effectively supply our troops in East Timor, even in recent years. It has not registered on this government at all.
I remember that the United Kingdom had a policy like this at one stage and almost abandoned its merchant navy. To its good fortune, it has seen the light and has again tried to encourage a strong merchant navy for the United Kingdom. We have not. We are geographically very isolated from many of our key trading partners and it makes no sense to me or to many Australians to be at the mercy of foreign shipping operators and to risk our national security because we are too lazy to bite the bullet as a maritime nation and have an effective merchant navy.
I call on this government to stop its destruction of Australian shipping and to work to develop a policy for the shipping industry to once again make the industry in this country strong. It is in our national interest. It is in our future interest. The lack of regard for shipping and the ignoring of the danger signs in a very complex world—and an even more complicated world over the last two or three years—are just beyond my comprehension. The ignorance is alarming. I would hope—although I see little hope, given the current attitude of this government—that something is done about the Australian maritime industry. It is not good enough, and Australians deserve better.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 because, as they do to the member for Port Adelaide, issues of maritime concern matter greatly to the great people of Port Melbourne, who form an iconic part of my electorate. Port Melbourne has been part of Melbourne Ports since Melbourne Ports became a seat—indeed, since Federation. Although the boundaries have changed, Port Melbourne has always been part of Melbourne Ports. Some may think the issues covered in this bill are not particularly glamorous, but it gives me a chance to talk about the important issues relating to the welfare of Australian seafarers and waterside workers, the health of the Australian shipping industry and some other questions of national security.
The electorate of Melbourne Ports has existed since 1901 and has been represented by a Labor member since 1906. This December, we will be celebrating a century of Labor representation in my electorate. In all of that time, the only suburb that has been continuously in Melbourne Ports is, as I said before, Port Melbourne. It is locally known as ‘the Borough’. It is a great honour to represent the fine people of Port Melbourne. As I polled 74 per cent of the two-party vote in the Sandridge booth in the 2004 elections, it seems they are pretty happy with me as their representative. Perhaps that is because issues affecting port are of very serious concern to me. Although the social mix in Port Melbourne has changed a lot over the years, it still has a core of people who make their living from maritime industries. Of course, all the people of Port Melbourne, regardless of their occupation, have a stake in the security of Melbourne’s port facilities, which are close to their homes, their workplaces and their schools.
This bill amends four maritime acts. Most of the amendments are not controversial, and Labor supports them. That is why we are not opposing the passage of the bill. But it is necessary to make some comments about this government’s administration of one of these acts, the Navigation Act 1912. The Navigation Act provides that the minister for transport may issue a single-voyage permit or a continuing voyage permit to an unlicensed ship to engage in trade between Australian ports, but only if there is no licensed ship available or if the service provided by the licensed ship is inadequate and the minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. The bill amends the act to remove the requirement for the minister to give six months notice of the intention to cancel a continuing voyage permit.
It is therefore relevant to this bill to look at how the current government has administered this act during a decade in power. When there is a coalition government, the transport portfolio has traditionally been the preserve of the National Party. Since this government has been in power, successive National Party ministers—Mr John Sharp; the current Deputy Prime Minister; the honourable member for Gwydir; and the current minister, Mr Truss—have been in charge of our transport system. So the current state of our transport system is a result of 10 years of National Party stewardship. I have to say that this is not something that inspires confidence within me or the electors of Melbourne Ports. This year we have watched day after day during the Cole commission a steady accumulation of evidence of the gross negligence—there can be no other expression for it, and even that is an understatement—of successive National Party trade and agriculture ministers responsible for the debacle in the AWB affair, a scandal that has cost Australia our valuable wheat market in Iraq. It is truly scandalous to hear Minister Truss say that paying commissions in the Middle East was quite a routine affair—‘normal’ were his words. His comments moreover ought to be understood in that context, as if Australia, who had been involved in a conflict with a regime which this government quite rightly described as evil, should not have taken special care to see that we were not in any way assisting the very regime in which the government had invested so much effort identifying as one of the most evil regimes in the world.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 6.20 pm to 6.33 pm
As I was saying, the attitude of the series of National Party ministers in the transport portfolio does not inspire my confidence, particularly with the controversial issue of single-voyage permits. We have watched the behaviour of successive National Party trade and agriculture ministers exposed at the Cole royal commission every day. Earlier I mentioned Minister Truss’s claims about how normal it is to pay bribes in the Middle East, that I think infects their attitude to Australian shipping—in particular to the single-voyage permits.
The AWB affair has been spoken about very seriously by many people, but I think there has been nothing as witty as a very short letter that appeared in the Melbourne Age, which imitates the metier of the great American comedian Jackie Mason. I will read it for Hansard readers’ amusement and for members of this House. The government’s attitude to the AWB scandal can be summarised as follows, according to David Cameron Staples of Elsternwick:
It wasn’t illegal. It was illegal, but no one could have known. People could have known, but it wasn’t as if they should have known. People should have known, but they didn’t. People knew, but they didn’t tell anybody, or they told the wrong people. The right people were contacted, but too late. The right people were contacted years ago, but did not think it was serious. It was thought serious at the time, but no one told the ministries. The ministries knew, but no one told the ministers. The ministers knew, made notes to tell someone and thought no more about it, and this vindicates everything that has been claimed so far.
I think that Vaile/Truss gobbledegook and incessant contradiction summarises neatly the attitudes of National Party ministers to this ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal. It is indicative of their attitude to the Australian shipping industry and single-voyage permits in particular. How can we go on entrusting the security of our ports, the safety of our port communities and the protection of our maritime environment to a party which has been responsible for the greatest scandal in this country for decades?
As the shadow minister, Senator O’Brien, said in his second reading contribution on this bill, the Howard government’s administration of coastal shipping under the Navigation Act has been a shambles. This was revealed in an article in the Australian last year, from which Senator O’Brien quoted. The article revealed that a compliance review of coastal shipping permits had been conducted by KPMG in October 2004. This report delivered a scathing assessment of the government’s performance and revealed that one in six coastal shipping permits was being granted without a signed application form, which means the department risked granting a permit based on a bogus or unauthorised application.
It is astonishing that, 4½ years since September 11, the Australian government still permits such a slack system of shipping regulation—one that clearly places Australia at increased risk of attacks by maritime terrorists. The United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars making its ports and shipping routes secure against terrorist threats. In Australia, by contrast, we have a government that still allows the Department of Transport and Regional Services to issue shipping permits in response to unsigned applications. Bodies such as International Maritime Security have been warning for years that al-Qaeda and its regional affiliates have penetrated the international shipping industry, an industry which has been marked by dodgy operators concealing their real identities behind a facade of dummy companies and flags of convenience.
Australia’s vulnerability to a terrorist attack is greatly increased by permitting foreign ships to sail from port to port, allegedly for domestic purposes, without, as we now know, even lodging a signed permit form. Under this government, foreign ships, including those under flags of convenience whose real origins and ownership are unknown, are being authorised to carry LPG and dangerous chemicals such as ammonium nitrate into Australian ports.
The fact is that this government often has no idea what ships are entering Australian ports. The KPMG audit revealed inadequate financial controls, which means that the government is often unaware of fraud or other irregularities in licence or permit applications. It revealed poor record keeping, meaning that the data relating to more than 20 per cent of approved licence and permit applications was ‘absent or incorrect’. The KPMG audit further revealed that existing regulations are out of date or do not reflect current operating procedures. In the current security environment this is simply not acceptable. It will certainly not be acceptable to people who live and work in port communities, like those in my community or in that of the member for Port Adelaide, whose safety is being put at risk by this government’s negligence.
The carriage of dangerous goods like ammonium nitrate by foreign ships must stop now if Australia is serious about minimising the threat of terrorism. It should be clear to everyone that the safest way to transport such dangerous goods around Australia is on Australian ships crewed by Australians and subject to appropriate security screening. Secure ships and secure seafarers mean better protection for the Australian community. The Howard government has not only allowed a great expansion in the number of continuous voyage permits issued to foreign ships; it has also left Australia vulnerable to the threat of terrorism through its refusal to properly regulate the coastal trade.
I now turn to some of the industrial issues raised by this bill. It is not news that this government is hostile to the Australian maritime industry and those who work in it. We remember the efforts of the former minister for industrial relations to destroy the livelihoods of Australian maritime workers. It is interesting to observe, in the Port of Melbourne, that many members of the MUA, so denigrated before, are now shifting cargo at incredibly fast rates. The box rate through Australian ports is very high. But the trickle-down effect of the microeconomic benefit of higher productivity with less labour like this has not been seen by anyone. All that has increased since the changes arising out of the government’s brutal dockside intervention is the rise in the share price of firms like Patricks.
While maritime workers are shifting an incredible number of containers through Australian ports, the cost to importers and exporters of containers continues to go up. So the only benefit from this microeconomic reform has not gone to the wider Australian economy or to the trickle-down effect to importers and exporters and therefore to the public but to the share prices of Patricks and P&O.
In other areas of maritime concern it seems that little has changed. Under the navigation, coast and trade regulations, single and continuous voyage permits are only supposed to be issued when a licensed ship is unavailable and the minister for transport is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. The KPMG report found that the government has frequently breached the regulations by failing to establish if a licensed ship is available before issuing a permit. It is notorious that many unlicensed foreign ships granted single or continuous voyage permits do not pay their crews Australian wages when trading on the Australian coast, and that foreign flagged ships of convenience undercut Australian wages and conditions. I suppose the analogous situation would be to allow truck drivers going up and down Highway 1 to be paid at Filipino or Sri Lankan rates. That is an exact extrapolation of what the Australian government is permitting along the Australian coast at the moment.
The Liberal-National government’s maritime behaviour is in marked contrast, I might say, to the United States, which does not permit any of this kind of activity with its coastal trade. The Howard government has presided over the near destruction of the Australian coastal trading fleet, while allowing foreign shipping companies to use substandard vehicles and engage underpaid workers. This government must do more to fix the deficiencies in maritime security, which have been well known for several years. Australia depends to a greater extent than most countries on seaborne trade, and we are adjacent to a region where terrorist groups have maritime capabilities. In particular, there is that well-known al-Qaeda hub in the south of the Philippines. It is no longer acceptable that the administration of our shipping system is in the hands of these National Party ministers who, in my view, administer control of Australian transport in this wholly inadequate way.
The Howard government’s record on Australian shipping is a disgrace and it should hang its head in shame. The zealots on the other side of this parliament have all but destroyed the Australian shipping industry. I ask: why? There is only one answer to that question: it is driven by an ideological hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia. Every decision the Howard government takes in relation to our shipping industry, which is vital to the prosperity of our nation and vital to a sound economy, is driven not by what is the best or most beneficial approach or by what is going to take Australia forward. Rather, it is driven by its hatred of the MUA.
You only have to listen to the contributions made to this debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 by government members to see this hatred and the union-bashing approach to shipping. On the last day that this piece of legislation was debated in this chamber, I listened to the member for Blair. The whole of his speech was directed towards rhetoric attacking the MUA. To my way of thinking, that is not a positive approach. That is not looking at building a vibrant shipping industry. Rather, that is a very negative approach that is designed towards destroying an industry rather than seeing it prosper, grow and benefit the nation that it is there to serve.
This has been to the detriment of Australia. As has been said many times in this debate, particularly by people on this side of the House, Australia is an island nation. In the past, Australia has been noted for its maritime expertise. Internationally, we have Australians working in the maritime industry and they are highly respected for their knowledge and professionalism. Yet what do we have? We have the Howard government constantly undermining this Australian industry that provides jobs for Australian workers—an Australian industry for Australian workers.
The Howard government’s approach to shipping is very different to the approach that is being adopted overseas. For instance, the UK have appreciated the importance of a strong national shipping industry. They believe that this is important from the point of view of onshore and offshore activities. There has been considerable effort made in the rebuilding of the industry because of the benefits that it provides to the nation. Within the European Union there has been a commitment to the shipping industry, including a commitment to developing the skills of the industry. Compare that to what is happening in Australia and you will see why we should hang our heads in shame.
The industry has been undermined by the Howard government through the skyrocketing numbers of continuous voyage permits and single-voyage permits—CVPs and SVPs—that have been given to overseas flagged ships. These ships do not have to meet the Australian standards. Their crews are paid at a lower rate than that of Australian seafarers. This has undermined the shipping industry in Australia. The Howard government’s shipping policy is not driven by the national interest but rather by hatred for the MUA.
The US has a very different approach to shipping to the approach that the Howard government has adopted. A letter that I have received from the Maritime Union of Australia highlights the commitment of the US government to a strong merchant navy. The US government argues for a strong merchant marine and Jones Act fleet to ensure that the US has a world-class vessel to meet sea lift needs and that it has expert and experienced seafarers to crew the US government’s organic surge in sea lift ships in times of national emergency. Its policy is to have a US industry crewed by US seafarers in times of national emergency—think about that. It has a modern shipyard industrial base that is critical to the nation’s security and makes intermodal transport systems available for defence use through the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift agreement. This approach has had the support of a number of US presidents, the most recent being President George Bush. In 2004, he said:
The United States needs a maritime policy tailored to 21st century needs. Programs that have contributed to the growth of our domestic fleet, such as the Jones Act … should be maintained.
That is a very different approach to that adopted by the Howard government—an approach that has seen CVPs and SVPs issued to international operators flying flags of convenience with crews that do not have to pass the same security tests as crews of Australian ships. I believe that this is placing at risk not only our shipping industry but also the safety of our nation and our environment.
I will return once again to the letter I have in front of me. It goes on to talk about the guidelines, how they are being abused in the issuing of the CVPs and SVPs and how the permit system—this is a little bit of history—was introduced as a reform. At that particular time it had some support, but, unfortunately, this is a system that has been abused. It has weakened our industry and has resulted in a system that I think has all but led to the destruction of our maritime industry here in Australia.
I think we only have to look back to September 11 to see the importance of ensuring that we have a shipping industry operating in our Australian waters that is secure and that we can be confident will operate in the way that we would like it to for both security and environmental reasons. There are serious concerns about port security which have surfaced both nationally and internationally. These concerns have been addressed by nations by ensuring that there is a pool of their own nationals with marine skills and expertise.
Here in Australia we have adopted a different approach. We have embraced the CVP and the SVP and we have supported a contraction of our shipping industry. The current tax and regulatory system favours foreign ships and foreign crews. This has been put to me in evidence to the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, that I am a member of. Shipowners have mentioned that in that context. Shipowners in Australia are also very concerned about the destruction of our Australian shipping industry. So on the one hand we have shipowners concerned about the destruction of the industry and on the other hand we have the Maritime Union concerned about the destruction of our shipping industry.
This bill makes amendments to the Lighthouse Act, the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. It makes a number of amendments to the Navigation Act, including revising the pilotage provisions to provide for compulsory pilotage in areas specified by regulation, revising provisions relating to reporting of ship movements and revising the requirement for six months notice before the minister can cancel or continue a CVP. There are increased penalties for major offences that pose a threat to life. You cannot disagree with most of the amendments that are included in this legislation. But, more importantly, I support the second reading amendment that has been moved which holds the government to account for failing to uphold Australia’s national interest by adopting an anti-Australian shipping policy, one that favours foreign vessels and crew despite the risk to national security and jobs.
I mentioned a little bit about the CVPs and SVPs and how they are very contrary to the national interest. When the former member for Shortland the Hon. Peter Morris was in this parliament, he chaired the committee that brought down the ships of shame report. That report very graphically identified the problems that exist within the industry, where you have these flag of convenience ships traversing up our coastline with unskilled crew from unknown origins with questionable levels of competency.
A couple of years ago I visited one such ship in the Port of Newcastle. It was a Maltese flagged ship—I think it was the Angel III from memory. It had a Greek captain and a Burmese crew. All the signs on the ship were in English or Greek and none of the Burmese crew could speak a word of English or Greek. Other occupational health and safety signs were also not in the language of the crew and I was very concerned about the treatment of those crew members.
Some reports have been prepared and delivered. The report Ships, slaves and competitionand the former member for Shortland was the chair of that committee inquiry—looked at shipping from an international perspective. Former Minister Sharp and Peter Morris were involved in those reports. Each of those reports came up with similar recommendations that showed that the current system was not working. It was not providing the protection that we in Australia would expect and it was leading to the destruction of our shipping industry. It was being driven by the government of the day not because we do not need a shipping industry but simply because they do not like the MUA.
Single-voyage permits have enormous implications for port security, particularly in such times as we are in now. Unlike members of the government, I really do value the contributions of our Australian seafarers. I know that they are committed. I see the member for Blair enter the chamber; I did refer to your contribution to this debate little earlier. I was quite critical of your anti-MUA comments and your failure to come to terms with the real issues that surround the shipping industry. I do believe that it is in Australia’s interests to have a vibrant shipping industry, one that includes all the professions, all the trades, all the expertise and skills that are needed to achieve that.
I think I should mention the KPMG compliance review of coastal shipping completed in October 2004. It was quite a scathing attack on the government. It showed that there are many problems associated with the way this industry is operating. This particular report was leaked and revealed in the Australian on 18 July 2005. It is a damning report of the Howard government’s handling of the Australian shipping industry, the administration of coastal policy, the licensing, and the permits for foreign vessels. Once again, it goes to the way this government is driven not by the best interests of the nation but rather by its philosophy.
The report demonstrated that there were inadequate financial controls, that the government was unaware of fraud, that there were errors and irregularities relating to licences and permits and that there were poor records. Those poor records resulted in one in five approved licences and permit applications being made in the absence of correct information and with existing regulations out of date. What this says to me is that the process in relation to these CVPs and SVPs is in chaos. If the government is serious about what is best for Australia it will make a commitment to our Australian shipping industry. It will ensure that we have Australian flag ships. It will ensure that we understand the ownership trail of two particular vessels and it will not issue any CVPs or SVPs without having the proper information. I implore the government to embrace the shipping industry. I implore the government to address these real issues. I implore the government to make a decision to support our shipping industry and to move away from these CVPs and SVPs which, I believe, are placing the security of our nation at risk. They are placing our environment and our pristine coast at risk.
I conclude by mentioning the MV Wallarah that used to take coal from Catherine Hill Bay to the port of Newcastle. It is now operating in the waters surrounding Australia. It is a Tongan owned ship and sails under the flag of a different nation. It is very sad when an Australian built and owned ship is now part of the fleet of another nation. The government stands condemned for its policy. (Time expired)
in reply—I appreciate the opportunity to sum up the debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 and I thank those members who have made a contribution, including the member for Blair, who is in the chamber today, and the members for Oxley, Batman, Newcastle, Melbourne Ports, Port Adelaide and Shortland. There is one thing I would like to say in response to the comments by the member for Shortland. She claimed that government members do not value the contribution of the Australian men and women seafarers in our shipping industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill illustrates the Australian government does care very much about the safety of the men and women who work in our shipping industry. When one listens to those opposite one would think they had hands-on experience—
I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. Would the minister be kind enough to allow the member for Brisbane to make a short contribution prior to his summing up? I have just been informed of his great desire to do so.
Leave granted.
I appreciate the leave being afforded to me. I thought there were some other speakers on the speakers list for the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 prior to this point. I discovered only a few moments that that was not the case. The Australian maritime industry is incredibly important to Australia as an island nation. It seems to me that for too long it has been chronically undervalued—I suspect partly because of other agendas and ideological pursuits. It concerns me that the current government have, through a series of policies, devalued that industry.
Recently, I had the good fortune of visiting some folk in the United States and talking to them about the maritime industry and the way in which security issues are dealt with in maritime circumstances. I raised with them a concern I and others on this side of the parliament have about the government’s willingness to provide flag of convenience ships with single-voyage permits on an all too regular basis and with little regard for or knowledge of who owns the vessel, how it is crewed or, indeed, who the crew are. Identity checks are scant, and security checks are virtually non-existent. In spite of government regulations requiring ships to provide cargo manifests and crew manifests, ships come to our ports without doing that. You could not do that in the United States. In the United States, ships are required to stand off. Coastguard then intercept them either by boat or from the air.
Further to that, there is concern not just with the trade that is plied but with what is carried. I commented in an earlier debate about concerns—I will not go through them now—about the carriage of potentially dangerous material such as ammonium nitrate and the examples we have seen of that. There is an interesting comparison here. When you ask people in the United States how they deal with the security threat posed by flag of convenience ships picking up ammonium nitrate in one domestic port and taking it to another domestic port, they look at you rather quizzically. When you pursue it, they say: ‘Of course, it does not happen here. You cannot have a foreign ship and carry cargo from one port in America to another port in America.’ The laws of cabotage apply. The idea of single-voyage permits was something quite foreign to the people in the United States whom I met with a couple of weeks ago and discussed this very topic with.
Single-voyage permits in the Australian context, with our comparatively small merchant navy, fulfil some useful role when properly applied. However, the history of single-voyage permits in recent years is that they have not been properly applied. They have been handed out with gay abandon and with little regard to either the security environment that we now operate in or the long-term interests of Australia and the need for us to have a strong and viable maritime industry.
The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 deals with one aspect of the maritime industry, which is important and in large measure non-controversial. But I take this opportunity to call on the government to reassess their approach to Australia’s maritime industry. At this moment, as we speak in the parliament, elsewhere in another committee room a hearing is being conducted into the shipbuilding industry and its importance to Australia. It is vitally important. Shipbuilding goes hand in glove with our requirements as an island nation—the capacity to maintain, design and construct ships on our land. Also important is our capacity to have well-trained, highly qualified mariners—people who are seafarers of good repute. Australia’s seafarers are held in the highest regard around the world.
Earlier this month I had the opportunity and pleasure of talking with people from the International Maritime Organisation. There is no doubt that the professionalism of Australian seafarers is acknowledged around the world. Sadly, it does not get the recognition it should from this government. So I take this opportunity to strongly urge the government to reassess its approach to the maritime industry and to take on board the importance that the industry holds for Australia and the need to nurture it and to ensure that Australian crewed ships are once again able to properly conduct trade around the coastal shipping lanes. In other countries that is done as a matter of fact, but here in Australia it is regarded very often by those opposite as some cardinal sin of economic theory. In fact, it operates without a problem in the greatest capitalist economy in the world. I suggest to those opposite that it would operate here equally well.
Finally, I urge those opposite to provide some genuine respect for those Australian seafarers who, it seems to me, are better recognised abroad than they are here by our own government. That is a terrible slight on very professional seafarers. It has been my pleasure to meet many of them over the years I have been in this parliament. I found them all to be of the standard that people such as those at the International Maritime Organisation expect as well. I, again, thank the minister for his consideration in allowing me to make that contribution.
by leave—As I said earlier, it is a great pleasure to be able to sum up on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. I have thanked the members who made a contribution to the debate on this bill. I was referring to comments by the member for Shortland, who said that the government does not value the contribution of the Australian men and women who work as seafarers around the Australian coast. As I said, nothing could be further from the truth, and this bill shows that we are very concerned about the safety of maritime activities around the Australian coastline.
If you listened to the members opposite, you would think that they had a monopoly on understanding men and women who work in very difficult conditions not only around the Australian coastline but also around the world. I am very pleased to be able to report to the Main Committee that I was a card-carrying member of the Firemen and Deckhands Union and then a member of the Merchant Service Guild, having spent many years working on vessels in Australia. In fact, the largest vessel I commanded as first officer and master was a 224-foot vessel with a crew of 28. I was on board that vessel for some five years, so I have a hands-on knowledge of the importance of training young men and women in safe seafaring. I have also spent time at sea in some very rough conditions on a marine research vessel handling heavy winches and steel cables and the dangers that go with that. Also I had the experience of falling overboard in failing light in rough weather conditions some miles off the coast of Queensland. Fortunately, I was picked up by that vessel and I am here to tell the tale today. I wanted to put that on the record for those opposite who stand there with their pompous hand-wringing and complaining that government members do not understand real work, seamanship and caring about people. The Australian government members do have a wide range of experience and understanding.
Thank God they picked you up.
Thank you, Cameron. In summing up the bill, in recent years industry and other stakeholders have pressed for changes in a number of areas of shipping regulations to address what they see as outdated safety and environmental protection legislation. This bill addresses some of those concerns. In amending four acts, the bill will strengthen the legislative regime surrounding shipping, safety and maritime environment protection and will modernise and enhance penalties for safety and environmental offences.
A number of the amendments were specifically referred to in the second reading speech and during the debate on this bill. The only amendments which I will mention now are the new subsections 386A(2) and (3) to be inserted into the Navigation Act. These subsections set out offences that are similar to dangerous driving offences. There will be an offence under the new subsections only under exceptional circumstances. Such an offence will occur if a seafarer is under the influence of alcohol or another drug or is in breach of his or her duty or if the seafarer operates a ship in a dangerous manner and, as a result, there is actual or likely death or injury to a person or damage to a ship. There are graduated maximum offences, depending on the consequences of the action, with the highest offence applying where a person dies.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring that Australian shippers have access to internationally competitive shipping. In providing shippers with access to competitive shipping, we are committed to enforcing the highest standards of safety, security and environmental protection. This bill continues the government’s efforts to set appropriate standards, and I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Oxley has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.