Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ruddock.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2006 contains amendments to the Customs Act 1901, the Customs Tariff Act 1995, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 and the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 which would implement the recent amendments to the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, ANZCERTA.
In accordance with one of the current rules, manufactured goods imported from New Zealand are originating, and therefore eligible for a preferential rate of duty if the last process of manufacture occurs in New Zealand and the goods satisfy a regional value content requirement.
This bill implements amendments to the ANZCERTA that would also allow the ‘change in tariff classification’ method to be used, along with a regional value content requirement, to determine whether goods from New Zealand are New Zealand-originating goods. The new rules would only apply to goods imported on or after 1 January 2007.
As announced by the Minister for Trade and his New Zealand counterpart in February 2006, the last process of manufacture method will continue to be available alongside the new ‘change in tariff classification’ method until 31 December 2011, to allow importers, exporters and manufacturers time to adapt to the changes.
This bill also contains minor consequential amendments to customs related legislation and the Legislative Instruments Act.
This bill is designed to simplify the process of determining whether a good from New Zealand is a New Zealand originating good and therefore eligible for a preferential rate of duty.
Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ruddock.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006, the consequential bill, are the first part of a legislative package that will reform Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing, AMLCTF, system. The primary purpose of the legislative package is to ensure Australia has a financial sector that is hostile to criminal activity and terrorism.
The reforms will bring Australia into line with international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force’s, or FATF’s, 40 recommendations and nine special recommendations on terrorism financing. The FATF recommendations provide an enhanced and comprehensive framework of measures for combating money laundering and terrorism financing.
Business has supported the development of this legislative package as it will ensure that Australia’s financial sector remains robust and internationally competitive. The international financial services sector must take into account adequacy of AMLCTF compliance when dealing with foreign counterparts and jurisdictions. Australian business faces reputational risk and financial loss if Australia fails to observe international standards.
As a significant contributor to the development and implementation of AMLCTF systems in our region, Australia needs to take the lead in meeting international best practice.
The current legislative package implements the first tranche of AMLCTF reforms covering the financial sector, gambling sector and bullion dealers as well as lawyers and accountants, but only to the extent that they provide services in direct competition with the financial sector. The second tranche will cover real estate agents, jewellers, lawyers and accountants. Work on the second tranche reforms will commence after implementation of the first tranche has been started. The second tranche legislation will be tailored to meet the particular needs of the small business sectors to which it will apply.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill will impose a number of obligations on businesses called reporting entities under the legislation, including customer due diligence, reporting, record-keeping and developing and maintaining an AMLCTF program. The banking sector will also be obliged to conduct due diligence on its correspondent banking relationships and ensure appropriate identifying information is included in international electronic transfers of funds.
Under the legislative package, the Australian Transaction Reports Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC, which will have a range of new regulatory functions, will receive an additional $139 million over four years. Further to its enhanced role as a financial intelligence unit, AUSTRAC will now have a significantly expanded role as the national AMLCTF regulator with supervisory, monitoring and enforcement functions over a diverse range of industry sectors. AUSTRAC will also have a major role in education, awareness raising and providing guidance on AMLCTF compliance for businesses.
The government is committed to ensuring that Australians understand their new obligations under the legislation and has provided $13.1 million for a public education and awareness program.
Consistent with the government’s commitment to reducing regulatory burdens on business, the legislative package implements a risk-based approach to regulation. Reporting entities will manage operational risks through AMLCTF programs developed in accordance with operational rules. AUSTRAC will monitor compliance with these programs and will assess the reasonableness of the entity’s risk management.
The risk-based regulatory approach recognises that reporting entities have the experience and knowledge needed to assess and mitigate risk. It will also help mitigate compliance costs by providing industry with the tools to concentrate their resources on areas where money laundering and terrorism financing risk is higher. Industry has endorsed the risk-based approach. Australia’s risked-based approach is similar to that taken in the United States and the United Kingdom.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill will be implemented in stages, with the most complex and costly obligations to be implemented 24 months after royal assent. This will allow industry time to develop necessary systems in the most cost efficient way. There will also be a period of 12 months after each stage is implemented during which AUSTRAC will focus on education, with punitive action only being taken if a business is making no reasonable attempt to move towards compliance.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill extends the current regulatory regime imposed by the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988. This act was developed at a time when most financial transactions were conducted face to face and over the counter at branches of financial institutions. The Financial Transactions Reports Act regime needs to be upgraded to combat the substantial changes to money laundering and terrorism financing risks associated with the increase in cashless, non face-to-face electronic transactions and global development in value transfer technology.
Most of the provisions of the Financial Transactions Reports Act will eventually be superseded by the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill; however, those provisions which apply to cash dealers who are not reporting entities under the bill will continue to apply.
The new regime will impact on privacy but the impact is a proportionate response to the problems caused by money laundering and terrorism financing in the current climate of heightened organised criminal and terrorist activity. The legislative package includes provisions to ensure that the privacy of legitimate customers is not unnecessarily affected by the legislation. The government is confident that the legislative package strikes the right balance between privacy interests and the needs of law enforcement agencies for targeted information about possible criminal activity.
The government recognises that AMLCTF compliance may impact on small business. The first tranche of AMLCTF reforms will, however, affect only a small number of small businesses which will receive additional guidance and assistance from the government through AUSTRAC and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Initial funding of $1.8 million over four years has been provided to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for this purpose.
Finally, I am pleased to say that the legislative package is the product of extensive consultation between the government, business and the community. In that regard, I would like to commend my ministerial colleague the Minister for Justice and Customs for the very extensive work that he has undertaken. Since December 2003 we have all been working together to develop a regulatory regime that is robust but ensures the impact on business is minimised. The government is now confident that the legislative package achieves a balance between the government’s law enforcement obligations and industry’s day-to-day operational reality. The government will continue to work closely with affected sectors in ongoing refinement of this new regulatory regime to ensure that the impact on legitimate business activity is minimised. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ruddock.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The primary purpose of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 is to amend various acts to allow operation of provisions in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill places obligations on reporting entities that are very similar to those placed on cash dealers and others under the Financial Transaction Reports Act. Eventually the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill will supersede many of the provisions of the Financial Transactions Reports Act.
The main amendments introduced by the consequential bill are to the Financial Transaction Reports Act. The act’s secrecy and access provisions will be repealed and will be replaced by new secrecy and access provisions in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill.
The Financial Transaction Reports Act, as amended by the consequential bill, will continue in force after the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill has been enacted. The amended Financial Transaction Reports Act will continue to apply to cash dealers who are not reporting entities under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill. The consequential bill therefore makes amendments necessary to permit the parallel operation of both the Financial Transaction Reports Act and Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill and to avoid duplications. The consequential bill will limit the application of the Financial Transaction Reports Act to cash dealers who are not reporting entities under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Bill.
Most other changes to the Financial Transaction Reports Act are minor, for example reflecting the change in title of the Director of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC, to the AUSTRAC Chief Executive Officer.
The consequential bill also amends other Acts to mirror the existing interaction of these acts with the Financial Transaction Reports Act.
For example, the Financial Transaction Reports Act currently excludes decisions from review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The consequential bill amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to exclude decisions made under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill from judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act.
Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act will exempt reports of suspicious matters under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Bill. This mirrors the existing exemption of suspicious transaction reports made under the Financial Transaction Reports Act.
Amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act permit a copy of a roll or an extract of a roll to be given to a reporting entity or agent of a reporting entity for the prescribed purpose of the reporting entity or its agent carrying out an applicable customer identification procedure under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill. The provision is equivalent to provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act that apply to the Financial Transaction Reports Act.
Amendments to the Crimes Act, dealing with pardons, quashed convictions and spent convictions, change the existing exemption for AUSTRAC, allowing disclosure of pardons, quashed and spent convictions for the purpose of AUSTRAC assessing prospective members of staff or consultants or other persons assisting AUSTRAC.
The consequential bill will also amend the Criminal Code Act by expanding the definition of ‘dealing in money or property’ to include proceeds of state and territory indictable offences. Money laundering offences in chapter 10 of the Criminal Code Act will therefore relate to a wider range of predicate offences. The application to state and territory indictable offences has been limited by another amendment in the consequential bill to ensure that their inclusion does not violate the Commonwealth’s constitutional power to make legislation under the external affairs power.
The consequential bill also amends the Privacy Act, bringing small business operators under the umbrella of the Privacy Act for the purposes of collection of personal information under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill.
The consequential bill also amends the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations. The step of using an act to amend regulations is being taken because otherwise these regulations would have to be amended in the one-day period between royal assent of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill and the commencement of the relevant part of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill which will commence the day after royal assent. I commend the consequential bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, I present the report of the committee entitled Examination of the annual report for 2004-2005 of the Australian Crime Commission, together with evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Debate resumed from 31 October, on motion by Mr Vaile:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Bevis 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:
We have a new Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Vaile. He has just started this job. The person who is actually filling the job of the Inspector of Transport Security has now been working for a couple of years. But whereas Mr Vaile is in a full-time occupation, the Inspector of Transport Security is required to work, usually, only one day a week—a simple part-timer. He has been doing so for two or three years now with no legislative power to cover him. It has taken some years, despite Labor’s prodding of previous transport ministers, for the government to come to the House with this set of cognate bills, the Inspector of Transport Security Bill 2006 and the Inspector of Transport Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2006, defining the powers of the Inspector of Transport Security, giving him a legislative basis and, granted the legislative basis and that the position taken into account by that is a part-time position, stating that he may be appointed part time. In fact he is appointed part time, because he is doing only one day a week.
The Inspector of Transport Security is supposed to be independent, yet he cannot initiate a single thing on his own. He takes instructions from the minister. It is only if the minister determines that there is a matter for him to look into that he can be given a job to do. It would have saved the Commonwealth a lot of money if the minister had just said, ‘One of my staffers can do this.’ Ministerial staffers already have overtime; there is a particular amount of money available to them. If the real power still lies within the Department of Transport and Regional Services and in the minister’s office, if the independence of the Inspector of Transport Security is not fundamentally guaranteed in order for the person to operate independently, why would you not just do it straight out of the department or out of the minister’s office?
The shadow minister made this point, and I think he made it well: you need to look at this position in terms of its significance and the legislative bindings associated with it in the same way that you look at the position of the Inspector-General of Intelligence. There should be a commonality in the approach taken because of the significance of the positions of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and the Inspector of Transport Security. This should not be just a one-day-a-week temporary job. It should be full time because the threat is full time; it should also be a position where the legislative basis is assured and fundamentally independent so that the Inspector of Transport Security can operate in the same manner as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and do the job that needs to be done in an unfettered way. The other requisite we are asking for is that the Leader of the Opposition should be taken into the confidence of the minister and the government so that the appointment of the person to that position is entirely bipartisan so as to recognise the significance of it.
You would not think that the government would have taken so long to put this bill before us. Indeed, it has taken the government two full years to appoint anyone to the position of Inspector of Transport Security. It was not until 4 September 2003 that the government announced their intention to create this position, and that was two years on from the attacks of 11 September 2001. By my reckoning, that is almost three years and at least one Minister for Transport and Regional Services or maybe two—former Minister Anderson might have still been fulfilling the role—as Mr Truss took over that role. The third minister for transport is Minister Vaile. He now has carriage of this. He is burdened with the problem that the position of Inspector of Transport Security is a one-day-a-week job. He is burdened with the problem that, although the strength and intensity of terrorist attacks have dramatically increased since 11 September 2001 and that it has become entirely apparent that modes of transport were used to effect those attacks, the pennies have not fully dropped here in Australia.
Throughout that period—almost three years—while we have been waiting for legislative backing for this position of part-time Inspector of Transport Security, we have seen a situation where the government just does not seem to understand that an attack could occur in Australia. Our transport security should be a full-time matter not just for people in charge of security at state government level or for people in the department but also for the Inspector of Transport Security. There are a number of reasons why this is necessary. We had the incident the other day when an ammonium nitrate train stopped for a short period of time and somebody shovelled tonnes of the stuff out the back of the truck into a ute. The reaction was: ‘Oh, it is probably not for a bunch of terrorists. It’s probably just someone who wants to take the ammonium nitrate and flog it off to someone to use on a farm or as explosives for farm purposes.
As the shadow minister, Mr Bevis, has rightly pointed out, this stuff is not really expensive. You can buy ammonium nitrate legally from one end of the country to the other. It is not something that people will pay a lot of money for, unless they are up to a nefarious act and want to use it to fundamentally damage our people, our institutions and our transport networks. We have seen a series of different examples of potential holes in security that have not been tracked or stopped. The government has not taken action in relation to them. In his contribution, the shadow minister used one particular example, which he has spoken of previously, as have I and other members of the opposition. This issue is of fundamental concern to our port security. It is a fact that ships under foreign flags carry crews who have never been security checked. They come to Australia, dock and then wander around from port to port with absolutely no inspection or control. There is just a hope that things will not happen. The shadow minister said:
On many occasions in this parliament I have raised the example in September of last year of one of those vessels, the Pancaldo, travelling around the Australian coastline on a voyage permit carrying 3,500 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. Ammonium nitrate is the explosive of choice that terrorists have used around the world for some years. Its use has been regulated by agreement with COAG, but the Commonwealth allow its widespread use by flag of convenience vessels with crews who have never undergone security clearances here in Australia, unlike Australian crewed vessels where maritime security identity cards provide thorough background checks on all Australian seafarers.
Take that ship into Sydney Harbour, roll it up to where our naval vessels are docked and loaded with ammunition, blow it up and you blow away Sydney. You might hope if a ship full of 3,500 tonnes of ammonium nitrate entered Sydney Harbour and powered its way to where our naval vessels were loaded with their own form of high explosives that there would be an intervention and it would be stopped. But the first guarantee should be a proper regime of transport security. Have we got it? The answers is no.
It is likewise with Sydney airport. Sir John Wheeler undertook an intensive period of investigation of security at the airport. He came up with what was a good and strong report. He did the best according to his knowledge, experience and ability in producing that report. But one of the problems he had was that, when someone looks at things from the outside, they do not really see what normally goes on. The fact that there was a major investigation underway meant that the normal security operations at Kingsford Smith airport were different. There was a show put on for Sir John Wheeler. The people who worked in security were told that there would be no control whatsoever on overtime. They could work as much as they liked. The money was there to do all the jobs they did not normally do, as long as Sir John Wheeler was there.
On the day he left, the uncontrolled overtime stopped. The day he left, the act of saying that Kingsford Smith airport was fundamentally safe ceased. Despite the changes made at Kingsford Smith airport following his report, the way in which people operate there is still fundamentally a cause of great concern. Why? Because the criminal activity at Sydney airport that has gone on for decades has not been tapped, it has not been regulated and it has not been investigated. Our current situation simply does not address it. I do not believe a hodgepodge of AFP, with some association with the state police, along with the way they have to interact with Customs, can identify or fix this problem.
Probably the only way that you will fix this is to put in a dedicated service, using state police, such as detectives, who have experience in investigating matters, who have on the street experience and who know the sorts of things that crims get up to and the way in which they operate. They can work with a situation where the security cameras are turned against the wall, where you are told that it just happened on one day and it really was not supposed to be such a great problem. There is a fundamental pattern of behaviour at Sydney airport in regard to the massive amount of goods that go through it. There is great criminality, and it has never been properly stopped.
One of the fundamental areas of concern in transport security is where you marry criminality with terrorist intent. That has happened in other places. We know it has happened here, because one of the Qantas baggage handlers was one of the first people investigated in terms of their connections with terrorists. But I also know from personal experience just how bad the situation is with private security companies. There are now a range of them. I know that we went from a situation where security at the airport was controlled by Qantas security to a situation where Wackenhut, the private company from America, took its place at the airport—and they also, for a time, took over security at our detention centres. We now have SNP and a series of others. But, if you actually look at the way in which they operate, if you go to the bottom of the pyramid, the subcontractors who are working have not been properly investigated. With respect to whoever takes the head contract, you can control the fact that that company is okay, it has its licence and it is all right, but the security industry operates in such a way that you end up with people contracting, subcontracting and further subcontracting until you get the people from my area and elsewhere who are working in there, and they have never been properly vetted, despite the fact that a series of changes have been put in place.
Many years ago—10, 15 or so—my brother worked in one of the freight-forwarding companies. He got a job there. He lasted six to nine months, I suppose. He could not take it anymore in the end, because criminality was completely rife within that company. He was approached. They told him that, if he wanted to keep his head on his shoulders, what he needed to do was simply to turn a blind eye when a truck came in and then went out with contraband to be delivered to other people. The people running that transport organisation, the people doing the work there, had had a settled approach to it. They ran it. They made their money out of it. And that sort of activity has continued virtually untrammelled, because, when someone comes in to inspect just on a part-time basis, people can get away with what should be investigated at a very serious local level by people who know what they are doing, by coppers who are experienced detectives who know what these sorts of characters get up to. That is a fundamental problem.
There is also a much broader area. The first sentence of Minister Vaile’s second reading speech is a bit of a worry. I know his intentions may be good. He said:
Transport security in Australia continues to compare well with benchmark countries.
‘Compare well with benchmark countries’? This government believes in benchmarking and auditing, not in doing things to fix the fundamental problems. Which benchmark countries? The ones that are potentially under attack from terrorists, or a broad basket of countries where security concerns are not that great? So far it has been the case that it is better to have luck than brains in transport security in Australia, because the fundamental work that needs to be done has not been done with the seriousness that is necessary.
What is the most probable thing to affect Australia? It is possible that we could have an attack such as the US had on 11 September 2001. That is possible. It is certainly possible, despite some improvements in securing our ports, that our ports, which are still far more open than they should be, could be used for a major attack using ammonium nitrate or something else. But it is far more probable that the attacks would be like the attacks on Madrid: on our train systems. If you nobbled Sydney’s metropolitan transport system by attacking its most open area then you would basically bring Sydney to a halt. You would bring its economic activity to a halt and you would choke it. All of those people who get on the train at Bankstown every day, travelling to the city—and there are people working in the city in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the department of taxation who used to have jobs at Bankstown before this government came to power, took those jobs away from them and put them back into the city—have to trust that our transport security is of a high order. I know that the state government has been doing a lot to improve transport security on our train systems, but I also know that we do not have enough concentration on this, because the attacks could come from a wide area.
We already know that we have terrorist cells in Australia. We know that some of the people in those cells have been apprehended. We know some of the things that they have been up to. But it is absolutely certain that there are other cells in operation. We have been in a situation where 88 people were killed in Bali and where some Australians were killed in London. It is almost inevitable, given the nature of the mentality of the people who want to pull our society to pieces and punish us for being a modern, secular society, that they will move people within Australia in order to get them to attack what is here—not just the blokes who have just been arrested in Yemen, who were running guns from Yemen to Somalia.
A great deal of work has been done by our security agencies, and I still do not think that they have been properly resourced in regard to this, because there are not enough Arabic speakers, readers and writers in ASIO. There are not enough people who can understand the mentality of the people who can become part of terrorist cells here in Australia. There is not enough of that. We do not have enough information coming from the community, although our fundamental safety is from people who do speak, read and write Arabic giving information to our intelligence services and being able to feed it in to someone like the Inspector of Transport Security—being able to give that information if there is an apprehension that we will have those kinds of attacks. We know from the amount of explosives in the group taken in some time ago that they had a concerted plan to do great damage.
It is intelligence in the community that we need, but we also need the capacity for someone who is not a one-day-a-week worker—no matter how well qualified they are—to do the complete job that we need on their own, without ministerial direction, as has been suggested by the shadow minister. We need that person to go in and scare the daylights out of the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services and the state entities that are involved in this so as to ensure that our systems are completely shaken up. We need that person to go in and look very closely at what happens at Kingsford Smith airport—at fundamental security holes, at criminality at the airport and at what connection there could be with terrorist activity. Those sorts of activities leave us open and subject to exploitation, and we already have examples of that.
The fundamental concern of our security agencies is of a twinning of that. Going way back to the attacks on the Lakemba police station, we know that terrorist activity and criminality have been entwined in Sydney, as they have been entwined elsewhere. We need a full-time inspector to work on this. I trust that the new Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, will have a fresh approach, greater intensity and certainly some momentum. It has taken almost three long years simply to get the legislation in place. After two years of inactivity in getting the idea up and running, this issue needs to be prosecuted strongly. I support the amendment moved by Mr Bevis. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Hotham for counselling the member for Brisbane.
I thank all members on both sides for their contributions to this debate on what is, as was pointed out by the member for Blaxland, a very important issue. The Inspector of Transport Security Bill 2006 and the Inspector of Transport Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2006 provide for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to initiate independent, no-blame inquiries into transport security matters. The purpose of an inquiry by the inspector will be to make recommendations, following such inquiries, to improve transport security in Australia.
Just by way of information, given the contribution by members, the role of the inspector is to undertake inquiries in transport security and offshore security matters. Transport or offshore security matters would include a transport or offshore facilities security incident considered by the minister to be a major incident, a series of minor incidents or occurrences that indicate a failure or weakness in security systems that could be considered systemic, or a major incident that occurs outside Australia that the minister believes may provide useful lessons for Australian transport and offshore facilities security. A transport security matter is one that is likely to involve serious breaches of regulatory obligations by regulated parties, security related incidents leading to injury or death, or an event or pattern of events pointing to transport security vulnerabilities.
I am pleased that during the debate the opposition has spoken forcefully in favour of the bill. I am particularly pleased that the opposition specifically supports the strong protections for information gathered in the course of an inquiry. I note that, despite its enthusiasm for the bill, the opposition has proposed a number of amendments.
Firstly, the opposition claims that the inspector is not independent because the inspector cannot self-initiate inquiries. Let me remind the opposition that the purpose of the bill is to provide a legislative framework for inquiries into major transport security incidents or systemic weaknesses in the transport security regime. Thankfully, such incidents or weaknesses are rare, and it is a matter for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—who is in the best position—to determine when such an inquiry is needed. I reject the assertion that the inspector is not independent. The bill specifically provides that, in undertaking an inquiry, the inspector is not subject to any direction from the minister or the department.
Secondly, the opposition has criticised the bill because it provides that the inspector may be appointed on a part-time basis. This is the case, and I am grateful that there is currently no need to have a full-time position of Inspector of Transport Security. Should the transport security environment deteriorate, the bill allows for the appointment to be full time if required.
Thirdly, the opposition would like to see the Leader of the Opposition consulted on the appointment of the Inspector of Transport Security. In proposing this amendment, the opposition has likened the role of the inspector to that of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The opposition fails to acknowledge that these roles are significantly different. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security oversights Australia’s intelligence agencies; the Inspector of Transport Security will conduct no-blame investigations, a role that is more akin to that of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which conducts no-blame investigations into safety incidents.
Fourthly, the opposition is seeking access to final reports of the inspector in all situations. The bill already provides that the minister may provide the final report to any person, including the Leader of the Opposition. This judgement will be made on a case by case basis, taking into account the public interest. Our government has always taken the view that the Leader of the Opposition should be briefed on issues of national security and national interest, and that position will continue in relation to this bill.
Lastly, the opposition would like to see all final reports tabled in parliament. I acknowledge the importance of public accountability in relation to the activities of the Inspector of Transport Security; however, I cannot guarantee that in every possible instance it will be appropriate for a final report to be tabled in parliament. Therefore, the public interest test that allows a report to be tabled in parliament and that is already in the bill should remain. In conclusion, the government is not going to support unnecessary amendments to this bill. However, I thank the opposition for their support of this bill and look forward to its passage.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brisbane 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.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (68) together:
(1) Clause 10, page 10 (lines 7-8), omit subclause (2), substitute:
‘(2) The Inspector may inquire into such matters in accordance with a direction from the Minister or in accordance with section 11A.’.
(2) Page 11, after clause 11 (after line 18), insert:
11A Inspector may decide to conduct inquiry
(1) Subject to this Part, the Inspector may decide to inquire into a transport security matter or an offshore security matter.
(2) If the Inspector decides to inquire into a matter the Inspector must inform the Minister in writing of the subject of the inquiry.
(3) The Inspector is not subject to direction from the Minister in relation to the inquiry, or any interim, draft or final report in relation to the inquiry.
(4) The Inspector is not subject to direction from the Secretary in relation to the inquiry, or any interim, draft or final report in relation to the inquiry.
(3) Clause 12, page 11 (line 23)
after ‘Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(4) Clause 12, page 12 (line 1)
after ‘Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(5) Clause 13, page 12 (line 9)
after ‘Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(6) Clause 13, page 12 (line 19)
after ‘Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(7) Clause 14, page 12 (line 25)
omit ‘The Minister must not direct the Inspector to’,
substitute
‘The Inspector must not’.
(8) Clause 14, page 13 (line 11),
omit ‘the direction is made’
substitute
‘the inquiry is initiated’.
(9) Clause 15, page 13 (line 15)
omit ‘The Minister must not direct the Inspector to’
substitute
‘The Inspector must not’.
(10) Clause 15, page 13 (line 34)
omit ‘the direction is made’,
substitute
‘the inquiry is initiated’.
(11) Clause 16, page 14 (line 4)
omit ‘The Minister must not direct the Inspector to’
substitute
‘The Inspector must not’.
(12) Clause 16, page 14 (line 29)
omit ‘the direction is made’
substitute
‘the inquiry is initiated’.
(13) Clause 17, page 15 (line 2)
omit ‘The Minister must not direct the Inspector to’
substitute
‘The Inspector must not’.
(14) Clause 17, page 15 (line 24)
omit ‘the direction is made’,
substitute
‘the inquiry is initiated’.
(15) Clause 18, page 15 (line 28)
omit ‘The Minister must not direct the Inspector to’
substitute
‘The Inspector must not’.
(16) Clause 18, page 16 (line 30)
omit ‘the direction is made’,
substitute
‘the inquiry is initiated’.
(17) Clause 22, page 18 (after line 10) after subclause (1) insert:
‘(1A) The Inspector must not decide to inquire into a surface transport aspect of a transport security matter unless the Transport Minister of the State or Territory in which that aspect of the matter occurs has agreed to the scope of the inquiry into that aspect of the matter’.
(18) Clause 23, page 18 (line 25)
omit ‘The Minister must not direct the Inspector to’
substitute
‘The Inspector must not’.
(19) Clause 23, page 19 (lines 1-2)
omit ‘direction is given’
substitute
‘inquiry is initiated’.
(20) Clause 23, page 19 (line 3)
after ‘Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’
(21) Clause 23, page 19 (line 8)
after ‘Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(22) Clause 23, page 19 (line 12)
omit ‘The Minister may direct the Inspector to’
substitute
‘The Inspector may’.
(23) Clause 23, page 19 (line 15)
omit ‘the Minister must not direct the Inspector to’
substitute
‘the Inspector must not’.
(24) Clause 23, page 19 (lines 22-23)
omit ‘direction is given’,
substitute
‘inquiry is initiated’.’
(25) Clause 23, page 19 (line 24)
after ‘Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(26) Clause 25, page 21 (after line 6) after subclause (1)
insert:
‘(1A) Before appointing a person to be the Inspector of Transport Security, the Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives.’.
(27) Clause 25, page 21 (line 9), omit subclause (3), substitute
‘(3) The Inspector must be appointed on a full-time basis.’.
(28) Clause 32, page 24 (line 6), at the end of paragraph (a)
add ‘or in accordance with section 11A’.
(29) Clause 32, page 24 (line 8), at the end of paragraph (b)
add ‘or in accordance with section 11A’.
(30) Clause 35, page 27 (line 19)
after ‘11’ insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’.
(31) Clause 35, page 28 (line 9)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’.
(32) Clause 35, page 28 (line15)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’.
(33) Clause 35, page 28 (line 34)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’.
(34) Clause 36, page 29 (line 8)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(35) Clause 36, page 29 (line 22)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(36) Clause 36, page 29 (line 28)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(37) Clause 36, page 30 (line 23)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(38) Clause 37, page 30 (line 31)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(39) Clause 37, page 32 (line 4)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(40) Clause 37, page 32 (line 13)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(41) Clause 37, page 33 (line 3)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(42) Clause 48, page 40 (line 14)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(43) Clause 49, page 41 (line 9)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(44) Clause 49, page 41 (line 30)
after ‘11’insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’
(45) Clause 51, page 44 (line 5) after ‘11’
insert ‘or in accordance with section 11A’.
(46) Clause 51, page 44 (line 11) omit ‘The’, substitute
‘If the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with a direction of the Minister under section 11, the’.
(47) Clause 52, page 44, (line 21)
after ‘the Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector
(48) Clause 52, page 44 (line 26)
after ‘the Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(49) Clause 52, page 44 (line 23)
after ‘the Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’
(50) Clause 52, page 45 (line 3)
after ‘the Minister’,
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(51) Clause 52, page 45 (line 8)
after ‘the Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(52) Clause 52, page 45 (line 18)
after ‘the Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(53) Clause 52, page 45 (line 24)
after ‘the Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(54) Clause 52, page 46 (line 2)
after ‘the Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(55) Clause 55, page 47 (line 20)
after ‘the Minister’
insert
‘or the Inspector’.
(56) Clause 59, page 51 (line 5)
after ‘inquiry’
insert
‘conducted under section 11A or’.
(57) Clause 64, page 55 (lines 2-4), omit subclause (1), substitute;
“(1) Subject to this section, in relation to each final report the Minister receives, the Minister must table in the Parliament a copy of:
(a) the final report, or
(b) a part of the final report, or
(c) if the Minister thinks that it is, on balance, not in the public interest to table the final report or a part of the final report — a document concerning the final report prepared and signed by the Inspector setting out such details as the Inspector thinks, on balance, it is in the public interest to present to the Parliament.”.
(58) Clause 64, page 55 (line 6)
after ‘report’
insert
‘or a document concerning a final report’.
(59) Clause 64, page 55 (line 14)
after ‘report’
insert
‘or a document concerning a final report’.
(60) Clause 64, page 55 (line 18)
after ‘report’
insert
‘or a document concerning a final report’.
(61) Clause 64, page 55 (line 22)
after ‘report’
insert
‘or a document concerning a final report’.
(62) Page 55, after clause 64 (after line 27) insert:
‘64A Final report must be given to Leader of Opposition
The Inspector must give a copy of each final report to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, but it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to treat as secret any part of the report or information in a report that is not tabled in Parliament or that is not disclosed in a statement tabled in Parliament in accordance with paragraph 64(1)(c).’.
(63) Clause 67, page 58 (line 2) after ‘11’
insert ‘or conducted under section 11A’.
(64) Clause 67, page 58 (line 7)
insert ‘or conducted under section 11A’.
(65) Clause 69, page 59 (line 21)
insert ‘or conducted under section 11A’.
(66) Clause 75, page 64 (line 19)
insert ‘or conducted under section 11A’.
(67) Clause 75, page 64 (line 26)
insert ‘or conducted under section 11A’.
(68) Page 71, after clause 80 (after line 9)
insert
‘80A Leader of Opposition to be kept informed
The Inspector shall consult regularly with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives for the purpose of keeping him or her informed on transport security matters and offshore security matters considered by the Inspector.’.
The 68 amendments relate to five principal areas and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services touched on them in his summation of the second reading debate. I made reference to them during my contribution to that debate. We on this side of the House think they are important. I listened carefully to the minister’s summation and understand that there is now a difference between the government and the opposition in terms of the accountability and transparency that should apply to this role. As the minister correctly pointed out, we do support the bill and the consequential bill. In particular, we support the no-blame and handling of information provisions. We fully appreciate the need for them.
However, it seems strange to me and to the Labor Party that provisions that would enhance the operation of the role of the Inspector of Transport Security to improve transparency and provide some publicly visible accountability are not acceptable to the government. Indeed, it goes beyond that, because the minister has said here today, as he did when he introduced the bill—and I will quote from his second reading speech:
The Inspector of Transport Security Bill ... provides a strong legislative basis to support the conduct of independent and impartial inquiries ...
That is a laudable objective which everyone would subscribe to, but the truth is the bill does not do that. It does not provide for independent and impartial inquiries. It provides for inquiries only to the extent and on those occasions and in those times that the minister wishes them to happen. That is not independent and impartial inquiry. That is inquiry at the request of a minister when that minister wants it. Indeed, having had the report generated, the minister is then free, under this bill, to deny access to that report to anybody, including this parliament. There is no requirement in the legislation for any acknowledgment in this parliament of that report.
That is a long way from being independent and impartial. The government say one thing and do another. The minister has a choice here. If he wants to have an impartial and independent Inspector of Transport Security, the bill needs to be amended. The minister may not want to adopt my amendments. I would be quite happy if he and the department have alternative amendments that achieve the same outcome. But the minister and the government cannot say that they want to have an independent and impartial Inspector of Transport Security and in the next breath say, ‘But the only thing the inspector can do is what we want the inspector to do, when we want him to do it, and even after the inspector has conducted an inquiry we will decide whether anyone finds out what he looked into or what he found.’ That is not independent and it is not impartial.
Let me go to the five issues that my 68 amendments cover. The report of the Inspector of Transport Security, we believe, should be made available to the Leader of the Opposition. There is precedent for this in other areas. The report of the Inspector of Transport Security is not like a report on the investigation of a crash scene as has occurred in the past with aircraft incidents. We are talking about a role that is being created specifically arising from the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks and subsequent concern about the safety of the travelling public. Since then we have seen commuter transport targeted by terrorists in Madrid, Mumbai, London, the United States and in other places around the world.
It is against that background that the government have decided to create this position, and we support that. We think it is important that there be an independent, senior person like the Inspector of Transport Security to do everything possible to prevent incidents and, should they occur, to make certain that we learn from the tragedies so they are not repeated. That is not like an inquiry into an aircraft accident. There is a reasonable case for the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that is, to receive the report. Bear in mind we are talking about an act of parliament that we would support were we the government. We would honour those provisions and expect that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever it was, would be briefed accordingly. It is a view of how good government should operate in matters of national security—rather than behind closed doors or under some cone of silence, as this bill provides. That is not the way in which you maintain the confidence of the parliament, much less the confidence of the Australian people. (Extension of time granted)
Amendment (62) deals with reports of the Inspector of Transport Security being made available to the Leader of the Opposition. It is a direct parallel with provisions from other legislation. I see the Attorney-General is in the chamber. He would probably be familiar with where the amendment came from. The amendment reads:
The Inspector must give a copy of each final report to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, but it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to treat as secret any part of the report or information in a report that is not tabled in Parliament or that is not disclosed in a statement tabled in Parliament in accordance with paragraph 64(1)(c).’.
Those are sensible and reasonable provisions that ensure, at the highest level, that both sides of this chamber are aware of the critical transport security issues confronting our nation. That is what good governance and democracy is about. That is what transparency is about. That is what independence of this office is about. If the minister and the government truly want to have an independent and impartial inquiry and an independent and impartial office, they will support my amendment. Or, if they wish to re-badge it and put something else there that produces a similar outcome, I am happy for them to do that.
Let me move to the second principal issue which my amendments deal with, and that is for the Leader of the Opposition to be consulted about the appointment of the Inspector of Transport Security. There is provision, which I referred to in my amendment to the motion that the bill be read a second time—and the minister referred to it in his summation—for this procedure to be followed in the appointment of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. It is true, I think, that they are not direct parallels. I accept that, but that is not to say that it is not a useful procedure to apply to an office of this kind.
Again, I want to remind the House that we are talking here about a very senior Public Service appointment with important roles and significant powers—at least, under the bill, when the minister lets the inspector do it—to look into what will be of major public interest. I think the Inspector of Transport Security’s role should be broader and more active than the government have allowed—but, even under the government’s definition of what the Inspector of Transport Security will do, we are talking about an incident that has occurred. The incident is not just a plane crash or a train being derailed but an incident which may well involve a terrorist attack on Australians either here or abroad—most likely here. In that environment, all Australians are going to want to know that the inspector investigating that is doing the best possible job, without fear or favour, without concern to their political masters and with one thing in mind: to ensure the protection of the Australian population, however they vote—it does not really matter.
That is why roles such as that benefit from being seen as having, quite rightly, the support of both sides of the chamber. That is why it is appropriate in the appointment of the Inspector of Transport Security that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives be consulted. It is a practice that is followed now for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for precisely the same reason. The public need to know that the person who effectively audits and oversees covert activities is not someone tied to the government of the day but that they are doing the job for all the people in this nation. That is why that provision exists there and I think it has good merit to be applied in this situation.
The third principle that my amendments address is to require the Inspector of Transport Security to be full time. We probably do not have the opportunity in this debate to go through all the things that this relates to but it does strike not just the Labor Party but the Australian public—who have actually been polled on this by media outlets on a couple of occasions—as strange that the most senior person in the system to validate our security procedures on transport has been employed, on average, for about one day a week over the last couple of years. This is a period of time which has seen the bombings in London, the bombings in Madrid and tragedies unfold in other parts of the world—the train bombings in Mumbai. These things have happened at the same time as we have seen flaws in Australian aviation security and maritime security. In particular, those two areas have been a matter of record in this parliament and in the public. Against that background, the Inspector of Transport Security has been engaged for about one day a week. It does seem to the Labor Party and to the public that that is a very odd occurrence and the amendments I seek to make put that position full time. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House for their courtesy in allowing me to continue.
The fourth item that I propose to cover in my detailed amendments is to give the Inspector of Transport Security the power to undertake inquiries of their own motion insofar as the Commonwealth jurisdiction applies. I go back to the comment made earlier in the statement that the minister made. You cannot have a position that is claimed to be independent and impartial and then say that the person is not allowed to conduct an inquiry without specific authorisation from the minister. Indeed, even after the inquiry has been authorised, the minister can subsequently decide to rescind that or to require that no report be written. That is not independent; that is not impartial.
If there is an incident or a circumstance in which the Inspector of Transport Security believes there is a risk and that there is a need for that matter to be investigated, why on earth should not the inspector have the power to do that? That does not deny the minister the right to instruct inspections. There may well be situations where the government of the day wants something inquired into that has not occurred to the Inspector of Transport Security. I am quite happy for the minister and the government of the day to have those powers—that is eminently reasonable—but to legislate to stop the Inspector of Transport Security from being able to conduct an inquiry that the inspector thinks is necessary undermines the total foundation of this position. It destroys the credibility of that person ever being seen as independent from government. They cannot be independent from government when the only time they can do things is when the minister says that they can. That is not what we should be doing here.
I go back to what I said earlier, that the government have a choice—they can have an independent office and amend the bill or they should stop using this rhetoric and at least admit to what it is. The person might as well be a ministerial staffer in the minister’s office and a political appointee, because they will have little flexibility beyond that which a ministerial staffer would have.
The final point that my amendments address is the requirement for the minister to table the report. In his summation of the second reading debate, the minister made reference to this and indicated that there may be times when you would not want to table reports, but normally you would. Our amendments are sensitive to the realities of that situation. I would refer the House and the minister to amendment (57), which I want to read because it covers off the concerns the minister raised. We substitute for the provision that at the moment simply says the minister may table a copy of the final report or a part of the final report in the parliament if the minister thinks that it is on balance in the public interest to do so, with these words:
Subject to this section, in relation to each final report the Minister receives, the Minister must table in the Parliament a copy of:
We recognise when you are investigating sensitive matters that it may well be that you uncover things that you do not want to disclose, even in this parliament. That does not mean there should not be transparency. That is why we think the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that happens to be, should have access to the report. We do think the parliament is entitled to some knowledge that an inquiry happened and to some knowledge about it. If there are issues which, for good public interest reasons, cannot be made available, those provisions we are proposing to insert enable the minister and the inspector to take account of that and for an appropriate report to be made available to this parliament. It is a thoroughly reasonable position to enhance the independence and accountability of the Inspector of Transport Security.
It is these sorts of provisions which Labor is moving here that bring with them the public confidence in positions of this kind and a certainty that, whoever the government of the day is, it has put the safety and security of the travelling public ahead of its own self-interest and ahead of its concerns about political spin or what the tabloids might say. When it comes to life and death matters, that is an obligation on all of us whatever our politics and whatever our position, whether it is government or opposition. I think the amendments are fair and reasonable. I encourage the government to take the time between now and the bill’s passage in the Senate to have a close look at them and I hope that it will give consideration to making amendments to pick up on the concerns I have raised. (Time expired)
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Bevis’s) be 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 18 October, on motion by Mr Vaile:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 14 September.
I present a revised explanatory memorandum to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The primary purpose of the Financial Transaction Reports Amendment Bill 2006 is to vary the amendments to the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988—the FTR Act—made by schedule 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (No 2) 2005. Schedule 9 comes into force on 14 December 2006. The bill also needs to come into operation by that date.
The bill amends the definition of ‘account’ for the purposes of division 3A of part II of the FTR Act. The new definition of ‘account’ will only apply to division 3A of part II of the FTR Act.
The bill amends the definition of ‘customer information’ in sections 17FA and 17FB of the FTR Act.
The bill restricts the application of division 3A of part II of the FTR Act to authorised deposit taking institutions—ADIs—to ensure that division 3A of part II of the FTR Act does not apply to non-bank money remittance businesses.
The bill will now ensure, by means of new section 17FC, that the provision of customer information in an international funds transfer instruction—IFTI—is not required where the IFTI is transmitted from a place outside Australia to another place outside Australia and merely passes through Australia.
The bill will also ensure, by means of new subsection 17FA(1A), that there is no gap in the legislation if an Australian bank that is asked to send a funds transfer instruction to a foreign bank is not able to deal directly with the foreign bank but has to go through an intermediary bank in Australia. The intermediary bank will be able to act on any information it receives from the originating bank. It will not have to make its own inquiries of the original customer.
The bill amends paragraph 29(4)(ba) of the FTR Act to refer to ‘an ADI’ rather than ‘a cash dealer’ to ensure consistency with the amendment to restrict division 3A of part II of the FTR Act to ADIs only.
Finally, the bill amends section 42A of the FTR Act to include a reference to schedule 3AA.
Division 3A of part II of the FTR Act brings Australia into closer compliance with Financial Action Task Force special recommendation VII. The changes in the bill will ensure that the practical concerns raised by industry have been addressed and resolved before division 3A comes into operation.
I commend the bill to the House.
It is both extraordinary and disappointing that nearly a year from the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 the parliament is already returning to fix the Howard government’s sloppy legislation. We should be under no illusions about what this bill amends, despite the innocuous-sounding title. This bill represents a significant rewrite of important provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 which are yet to take effect.
To that extent, this is a backdoor revisitation of the Prime Minister’s joint communique with the states and territories at the special COAG meeting on counterterrorism last year. The measures we are amending today were themselves brought forward for the government’s long-delayed anti money laundering regime. The Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 purported to implement the special recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force in relation to combating terrorism funding.
The Financial Action Task Force, the FATF, is an intergovernmental body designed to develop and promote policies to combat international money laundering and terrorist financing. To that end FATF developed two different sets of recommendations, firstly the 40 recommendations on anti money laundering, the latest update of which took place in 2003; and then, following the September 11 attacks, in October of 2001 another set of nine special recommendations specifically related to the financing of terrorist activity.
In 2003 the Minister for Justice and Customs promised that Australia’s Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 would be updated and brought into line with both the special and general recommendations. As is the way with the Howard government, by 2005 almost nothing had been done. An FATF task force visited Australia and reviewed our operations and legislative framework to evaluate our compliance with the recommendations.
The report of the task force is an embarrassing read. It is a list of failures of the Howard government to keep Australia up to date with international standards designed to fight terrorism. It is inexcusable that fully five years after 11 September 2001, the Howard government is yet to deliver a comprehensive legislative response to the threat of terrorist financing.
The FATF report found that Australia was compliant with only nine out of the 40 recommendations on anti money laundering. Nine out of 40—less than one quarter! That, on its own, would be an international embarrassment for Australia, but the report went on. Of the nine special recommendations dealing with antiterrorism financing, Australia was not compliant with a single one. Zero out of nine for counter-terrorist financing!
The FATF findings confirmed what we all know: the Howard government has been soft on financing of terrorism. It is big on rhetoric; soft of action. Australia’s complete and absolute failure to deal with terrorist financing is on display for the world to see. For all of the Howard government’s tough talk on terrorism it is unable to bring in legislation to ensure that Australia has world’s best practice standards on money laundering and on antiterrorism. This is why Labor says that the Howard government is soft and weak on terrorist financing. All we see is inadequate consultation, shoddy legislation and delay after delay in getting strong laws that are needed put in place.
Thankfully, the international embarrassment of the FATF report seems to have spurred the government into some activity. Last year we saw some small attempts by the government to bring Australia into line with world standards on this issue through the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005. That bill, amongst other things, was designed to bring Australia up to speed with a number of the recommendations. However, the new provisions introduced by that bill were only a stopgap measure. They were designed to provide a temporary fix while the government’s long-delayed revision of the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 was being drafted. Unfortunately, it is nearly a year later and there is still no end in sight.
In any case, the problem with the legislation was simply the utter lack of consultation, and we are seeing that now. During the course of the Senate committee inquiry into the bill we found that the Attorney-General’s Department had not consulted with industry on the final text of the bill. In a characteristic display of arrogance and hubris, the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 was sprung on parliament and the government attempted to ram it through on Melbourne Cup day. Similarly, the Senate inquiry was to be limited, effectively, to a single day.
Ultimately the government was forced into a back-down and later managed to extract a week-long Senate inquiry—evidently not long enough. Fast forward a few months and industry has finally managed to convince the Howard government that the changes introduced in the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 will, if allowed to come into force, devastate sections of industry. This is not scaremongering by the Labor Party; this is stated explicitly in the government’s own explanatory memorandum, which says:
If the amendment to restrict the application of Division 3A of Part II of the FTR Act to ADIs is not made, then certain legitimate non-bank money remitters assert that they could be put out of business.
So the Howard government’s own initial legislation was so poorly drafted and so little consultation was held that the government was not even apprised of the fact that its changes would spell ruin for many Australian businesses. Thank heavens the Howard government has now come to its senses and accepted industry’s point of view that the shoddy legislation will destroy jobs. Labor will support this legislation, but we are certainly not happy with it. We will support the legislation because we have to. If we do not, then if the explanatory memorandum is to be believed legitimate Australian businesses will be put out of business.
The bill introduces a number of changes to the legislation. Basically, the bill does three things: it provides a new definition of ‘account’ for certain parts of the act, it provides a new definition of ‘customer information’ for parts of the act and it removes non-ADI—that is, authorised deposit institutes; basically banks—cash dealers from the operation of certain sections of the act. I will deal with each of these in turn. Firstly, the bill alters the definition of ‘account’ under the act. The new definition of account will apply only to division 3 of the act—that is, the division dealing with international funds transfer instructions. The changes to the definition of account bring this section into line with that in the draft AMLCTF bill and were brought about due to the concerns of industry. Bringing the definition of account into line with the draft AMLCTF bill means that industry will only have to go through one rather than multiple systems changes. Labor supports these changes.
However, a further point of contention has been raised by the Australian Bankers Association with the current definition and the inclusion of credit cards. This is because credit card account numbers are quite often used as stand-alones in a transaction. No signature is required if the credit card is being used to purchase something over the phone or over the internet. The Attorney-General’s Department has indicated that it will discuss the matter of credit card accounts further with the ABA. However, I think we seriously have to ask ourselves why this was not done before the current bill was introduced.
The next change that this bill makes is the alteration of the definition of ‘customer information’ to allow a greater latitude for the use of ID numbers attached to international funds transfer instructions. Currently, every time a bank sends an instruction for the transfer of funds to another institution overseas, a range of information must be included. The range of information that may be included was expanded substantially when the government introduced a raft of new amendments. There is now a wide range of information that may be included, including the customer’s address, ABN and date and location of birth. In any case, the proposed amendment will allow for much greater use of identification numbers rather than account numbers. Account numbers will now only be required to be included when the instruction relates to the transfer of money directly from a single account held by the customer. In other words, an identification number will suffice. This amendment is designed to simplify the transfer of IFTIs and provide a more practical option for financial institutions.
Division 3A under the legislation as it stands imposes substantial obligations on certain types of cash dealers—that is, those who are not authorised deposit institutes. An authorised deposit institute, or ADI, as I mentioned earlier, is essentially a bank. It is defined in legislation to be a body corporate for the purposes of the Banking Act 1959, the Reserve Bank of Australia or a person who carries on state banking within the meaning of the Constitution. The legislation as it stands—that is, prior to this amending bill—although it is not yet in force, requires a cash dealer to supply customer information alongside an international funds transfer instruction where the cash dealer who is not an authorised deposit-taking institution is acting on behalf of another person who is also not an authorised deposit-taking institution.
So if I am a cash dealer and I am sending an international funds transfer instruction on behalf of another who is also not an ADI then I am obliged to include certain information to identify the customer: account numbers, names, addresses et cetera. This is a requirement of special recommendation VII of the FATF. However, one of the main changes of this bill is to significantly restrict the application of this section. The bill will effectively remove non-ADI cash dealers from the operation of division 3A. That is, there will not be any requirement for those dealers to include customer information with any outgoing international funds transfer instructions. The stated reason for this is that it is impractical to require IFTIs sent from an institution in one country to the same institution in another to include originator information, because in effect this would require the institution to pass on the information to itself.
These changes are necessary to compensate for poor drafting and a lack of proper consultation in the first place. We have no wish to see legitimate cash dealers put out of business through no fault of their own but because the Howard government brings shoddy legislation before parliament. However, these are changes that cannot stand in the long term. If you have a situation where some cash dealers are subject to these requirements but others are not, then you are essentially erecting the financial equivalent of the Maginot line—a strong, impenetrable fortress that can be easily circumvented.
As I noted above, the requirement for cash dealers to include customer information in IFTIs is stated under FATF special recommendation VII, and there are serious concerns that the bill before us would effectively be a backwards step in our compliance with those standards. The department has suggested that the current framework of the FTR Act is unsatisfactory for the proper implementation of this requirement and that the special recommendation VII obligations will be properly enacted when the final version of the AMLCTF bill is released. Of course, this still leaves the problem of when we are actually going to see the final version of the AMLCTF legislation. We are still waiting for the final legislation some 3½ years after it was promised.
You saw it today.
We saw it today. It got introduced today?
Yes.
I stand corrected. That is one of the problems of having two bills on before 10.30, Attorney. I am delighted that it was introduced today and I look forward to the opportunity to have a look at it. I thank the Attorney.
A further issue with the bill was identified by the Australian Bankers Association, the ABA, with its application to the hub-and-spoke system. As identified in submissions to the Senate inquiry, the ABA noted that a number of their member organisations operated via a system whereby payments sent by other institutions to one of their offshore sites are routed through Australia. I bring this up at this point because the response of the Attorney-General’s Department was that they, to quote from the department themselves, ‘would like to seek further input from the ABA before any amendments were made to the bill to clarify this situation’.
It seems somewhat odd to me and the Labor Party that the government continually puts the cart before the horse in this way. It comes up with unworkable legislation and then seeks to consult with industry, after the fact, in trying to fix it when what is clearly required in good government is having some understanding of the industry and how it works—before you wrap it up in red tape. It is industry that is doing the job for government. The Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, and the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, should be paying consultancy fees to the Australian Bankers Association, such are the efforts to which it has had to go to educate the ministers and their departments on these matters.
It strikes me as more than absurd that, for all the talk about the importance of combating terrorism, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have proven themselves singularly incapable of providing a legislative response that is adequate. I note that the parliament was recalled at great expense to fix improperly drafted antiterror legislation by changing one word. In this context, I have been extremely critical of the government for putting Australia’s national security at risk through its shoddy drafting and casual approach to legislation.
I also note that the Howard government initially attempted to give the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 just that one-day Senate inquiry. I well recall that day and being up in the press gallery lampooning the government for its arrogance in trying to rush through such important legislation without any proper scrutiny by the Senate. This bill and its consumption of parliamentary sitting time could have been completely avoided if the executive had drafted its legislation properly or had allowed the Senate and the House of Representatives adequate time for scrutiny of the education—or indeed if the executive had consulted meaningfully with the stakeholders before rushing unworkable and error riddled legislation through the Senate.
Sadly, this government, now far too long in office, has adopted an arrogant approach in its treatment not only of the Australian people but also of this place. Now that it has a majority in both houses, this government has shown a complete disregard for the proper processes of review that have traditionally been the function of the Senate in particular. I know that my colleague Senator Ludwig and others in the Senate have over the years provided extraordinarily careful scrutiny of these matters before Senate committees. It is that scrutiny which ensures that legislation is correct before it is enacted. It is that scrutiny which this government has jettisoned in its lust for power in the aftermath of obtaining a majority in the Senate as well as a majority in this place. The result of that arrogance and disregard for what have in the past been proper processes of review, particularly in the Senate, is faulty legislation in a number of areas. In this area, dealing with antiterrorism matters, we have seen it occur all too frequently. As a parliament and as a people, we are all the worse off for that. I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I am pleased to have heard the critique of the government’s performance from one who did not even know that important legislation in this area had been introduced into the parliament today. One would think that, claiming perfection, one would not put oneself in a position of such immediate embarrassment.
In summary, the primary purpose of the Financial Transaction Reports Amendment Bill 2006 is to vary amendments to the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1998 made by schedule 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005. The current amendments are necessary to address the representations made by the non-bank money remittance businesses that the current application of division 3A of part II of the FTR Act could affect their business operations. Those businesses pointed out that they do not have the systems in place to recognise same institution funds transfers, where effectively they would be sending customer information to themselves—in other words, they do not use the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, SWIFT, style systems which would recognise such transfers.
The amendment to restrict division 3A of part II of the FTR Act to authorised deposit-taking institutions, ADIs, will mean that, on this issue, the FTR Act will not fully comply with special recommendation VII of the Financial Action Task Force. However, that issue will be resolved by the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006, the AMLCTF Bill, which I introduced today, in the first tranche of reforms. Under that bill there will be provision for rules to be made that will extend the operation of the relevant provisions of the bill to entities other than ADIs. The amendments in the Financial Transaction Reports Amendment Bill 2006 will be replicated in the AMLCTF Bill, when it is enacted, thereby ensuring a consistent approach is maintained. I am pleased to say that industry have examined the specific amendments and they have confirmed that the amendments will meet their concerns. While it has taken time to develop the AMLCTF Bill, industry have been extensively consulted in relation to that bill. I commented when I introduced the bill that the Minister for Justice and Customs had consulted very extensively.
These matters do require getting a difficult balance. That balance is ensuring that businesses are not unreasonably affected by measures that are absolutely essential to deal with terrorism financing. They appreciate the importance of that. They appreciate the importance of being FATF compliant. But, interestingly, if you take a rigorous view of these matters, you might well drive businesses out of business in addressing the particular problem. If you pursue the approach that we have, where you develop risk based programs in which you work with those who are in the best position to be able to identify suspect transactions, you can put forward measures of the sort that we have seen in the AMLCTF Bill that I introduced into the House today.
This consultation has been vital in formulating a package that accommodates industry’s needs both operationally and on a cost basis. The government does not apologise for taking time to consult with industry to get the bill right in what is a complex area. I might say it is certainly the case that if you look at why these changes have been made you will see that the amendments were drafted on the basis of issues that were identified by industry during the AMLCTF Bill consultation process, and those issues were raised after the ATA legislation—the antiterrorism legislation—had been introduced and passed by parliament late last year. The government amendments reflected later comments received by industry. In other words, industry did not form fixed and instant views when it saw the legislation. Industry have raised additional issues as the consultation process has progressed. This is the main reason we had to make government amendments to the initial amendments.
Other issues have been raised, but I do not intend to canvass them because I think each of them was raised in another place. The importance of dealing with these issues comprehensively, effectively and in a balanced way is the approach that this government take, and we do not apologise for ensuring that we consult fully and properly with all those who are likely to be affected. I commend the bill to the House and reject the amendment because I think it is only there for colour.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brisbane 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.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Ruddock:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 contains a range of major reforms to the Copyright Act 1968 that stem from several reviews that have occurred over past years and from some major technological changes. Other parts of this bill implement obligations under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement which Australia is committed to implementing by 1 January 2007. We understand this is why the bill has been pushed through with such urgency, after being tabled only in the last sitting week.
These changes signify one of the biggest overhauls of copyright law that we have seen for many years. Unfortunately, much of the change has also heralded quite unworkable complexity and, in some instances, quite bizarre inconsistencies.
There are four main areas covered by the bill: changes to attempt to make the law more responsive to new technology and/or technology neutral, like format and time shifting; a regime to deal with technological protection measures or ‘locks’, if you like, that can be put on copyright material; fair dealing and fair use issues, which include new exceptions and some changed definitions and which have a particular impact on educational institutions, researchers and so on; and, a new offences regime and enforcement measures. It is hard to summarise in a few points what such a complex bill does, but those are the major changes. I am going to take some time to go through a number of issues that have arisen in those particular areas.
Of course, we acknowledge that some of these changes have been subject to extensive consultation, such as the technological protection measures. Save for a few exceptions in those areas, these will be a big advance. Others are changes that have taken schools, researchers and other stakeholders quite by surprise and could risk upsetting the careful balance that is needed between proper remuneration for creators and accessible use of material for clear social purposes. These are some of the issues that I am going to spend much of my time on.
Before I do that, however, I want to put on the record that I am concerned in an overarching way that the government has chosen an odd path for reforming our laws to deal with new technology. Instead of moving towards making the laws technology neutral, in fact a number of the provisions in this bill have gone into more detail and more specifics about what is permissible and what is not permissible in different formats of material, some with current technology in mind but much of it in restrictive terms and I think potentially restrictive for dealing with future changes to technology. Let me use a couple of examples to make this more general point.
A number of the provisions do not seem to reflect the reality of how people access and use legitimately purchased copyright materials. One startling example of this is that a sound recording copied for use on an iPod or MP3 player is limited to a person’s private and domestic use. We have been advised that it is intentional, as some of the stakeholders have queried, to limit that use to inside one’s home. I cannot see the point of a funky, portable new technology, which is being taken up in the thousands by consumers, if it cannot be used outside the home. Obviously, the regime is only trying to protect those who are downloading and using legitimately purchased songs. I will be happy if the shaking of heads in the advisers’ box is an indication that that is not what is intended by those provisions. But the fact is that stakeholders and our own office are being advised of what these new provisions will mean and the impact they might have on new technology and it is not sufficiently clear in the legislation. I think that is really important. Similarly, the limitation of one copy being made does not reflect the reality that many people transfer and save copies of material onto their PC and put them onto their MP3 players. If you delete something from your MP3 player, some systems will automatically delete it from the computer when you resync it. So obviously that is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
In contrast, of course, the bill is actually tackling the age-old problem of taping a TV show at home to play later. At last, what has been technically unlawful for all these years will be lawful under the new time-shifting provisions, which sensibly amend copyright laws to reflect the reality of private, non-commercial use of materials by many thousands of Australians. It would be a shame, though, if this opportunity to implement a whole new raft of measures, through a failure to understand new or emerging technology, again outlawed consumers’ everyday use of technology and captured those purchasing or wanting to use legitimate material. As we know, if the laws are out of touch with personal practice then they do end up being treated with contempt and they do not encourage the purchase of legitimate materials and their lawful use—something that I know both the government and the opposition are keen to make sure that these laws will do.
Many of the provisions in this bill have been released as exposure drafts. Others were first seen when the bill was introduced into parliament in its final form less than two weeks ago. In fact, even some of the provisions that were extensively consulted on have changed so significantly that it has caught some of the industry by surprise. A 200-page bill in a complex area of law where vast changes have been made from earlier consultations will inevitably lead to much disagreement. And as the bill in its final form was only seen two weeks ago, I think it is a little unrealistic of the government to expect the opposition, the parliament and the industry to be able to absorb, advise, propose changes and support a bill, all in that time frame. The expectation is unrealistic and I do not think—as we have often seen in a number of other areas in this portfolio—that is the best way to ensure that we get the best legislation when major changes are being discussed.
I do appreciate that this is an incredibly complex area of law, however, and I do appreciate that it is always a balancing act. I do appreciate that the industry often has competing and conflicting views, and I do not in any way reflect on the work that has been done by the officers of the department or the Attorney’s officers, who are trying to deal with a difficult issue. However, I am conscious that we are creating a much more complex copyright system rather than a more simple one, and I am, as I indicated at the start, worried that some of the impacts in the new technology area are going to make things more difficult for the future and will require us to be back here again balancing these issues in a very short time, when the technology develops in a way that we are seeing happen already around the rest of the world.
The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is going to have 10 days more than this House is going to have to be able to try and iron out some of the major problems that have been flagged. Hopefully, the government, as it has indicated it will be prepared to do, will look very seriously at any recommendations that come from that committee. We will be keenly watching what the committee reports and will save any specific amendments for the debate in the other place, rather than have them rushed through here when extensive consultation and negotiation are clearly still underway with the department and when major groups affected by the bills have hardly had time to collect their thoughts on some of these issues—let alone, in many cases, suggest amendments.
It may sound peculiar to the House for me to be referring so often to industry and user groups in a speech where, of course, it is traditional for us to set out our view, the Labor Party’s view, on this issue, but in copyright law, where the legislation is so technical, governments and oppositions would both do well to listen to the practical implications of their proposals. What are these changes going to mean for schools? Are creators going to be properly reimbursed for their works? Are these definitions going to be workable for enforcement agencies? All these questions are vitally important and cannot be answered with confidence in the current bill.
So the question, of course, is: ‘Does Labor support the bill?’ There are substantial parts of the bill that we believe are very positive and must be supported. Other parts are still subject to major ongoing consultations with stakeholders and, given that we expect significant change through that process, the Senate committee process and the negotiation with government, we will reserve our final position until the debate is on in the other place.
However, we do think that the bill as it currently stands has a number of major flaws. While some of these are technical drafting issues which no doubt can be resolved, a number do reflect important policy questions, such as the use by educational authorities of copyright material and the standard use by consumers of new technology. I will be looking at and following the negotiations and debate in the coming two weeks with a particular eye to the impact that will be had on educational institutions and to any additional costs, whether they are in terms of paying for additional copyright material or administering a more complex system.
I hope from my reading so far that the issues that affect educational institutions have been resolved, but I am yet to have a final view on that. We will be looking very closely not just at the impact on educational institutions but also at the way new technology is dealt with by the bill. I have already flagged a couple of issues, like that of using MP3 players. It is obviously positive that, in contrast to that, the bill does fix other issues—for example, the region-coding issue for DVD players, which is a positive change in the way of dealing with technology.
But I am concerned that many of the provisions are now more technologically specific rather than neutral, even though one of the aims of the bill was to try to make sure that copyright law was going to be increasingly technologically neutral. A good example is the insubstantial copying provisions, where there is one existing rule for print and a new rule that is going to apply for electronic media.
We will be looking to see whether this is increasing rather than decreasing the complexity of the copyright laws. And, as is always the case in the copyright area, we will be looking to see whether a fair balance has been struck in the way that the provisions are finally negotiated.
Particularly, we are going to consider the way the penalty regime works. We agree that there is a need to strengthen compliance with copyright laws, but we do not want to be heavy-handed with the consumer or the little individual player in this process. However, we do want to make sure that our laws are sufficiently stringent and are able to be used easily by our authorities to target importers and those with commercial-scale operations who are regularly breaching our copyright laws.
So whilst we can note Labor’s general support for the reforms, we do have a series of strong reservations, and Labor’s final position on the bill will be subject to the result of the Senate committee review and any amendments also put forward by the government.
The government has presented this bill as a package of balanced and practical reforms dealing with copyright pirates while also ensuring that ordinary consumers are not infringing the law through everyday use of copyrighted products that they have legitimately purchased. We support that aim wholeheartedly. We are unsure, however, whether the bill, with the very worthy aims which the explanatory memorandum sets out and with its 200 pages of complex provisions, is able to live up to all the claims that the government has made—particularly in terms of keeping pace with technology, keeping Australia’s unique regime and ensuring copyright is not brought into disrepute by technical and out-of-date revisions.
I turn now to some of the key features of the bill and issues that need to be flagged. I hope I will be able to cover most of them in the time that I have available. The bill introduces new offences and enforcement measures in schedules 1, 2, 4 and 5 that are aimed at tackling copyright pirates who are seeking to undermine the legitimate rights of copyright owners. It also aims to make the copyright offences consistent with the rest of the Crimes Act. The bill will create indictable summary and strict liability offences with a range of penalty options. The strict liability offences will be underpinned by an infringement notice scheme in the copyright regulations. These changes will provide law enforcement officers with a wider range of options depending on the seriousness of the relevant conduct. The bill also contains amendments to evidential presumption provisions in civil and criminal proceedings to assist copyright owners in the litigation process. This addresses something that I know copyright owners have complained about for a very long time.
The bill also contains amendments to enhance a court’s power to grant relief to copyright owners in civil actions which involve commercial-scale electronic infringement. Amendments to the customs notice of objection provisions will reduce the administrative and cost burdens on rights holders in lodging notices and providing security for notices. These provisions have been the subject of the least amount of consultations out of the whole package of changes that are set out in this bill, and the variation of penalties across the offences is substantial. Accordingly, we are in the position where user groups are fearful that the sanction regime is far too harsh. In contrast, some copyright owners fear the opposite, depending on the type of offences that the police pursue. There is a fear, I think, that they may opt for the lesser strict liability offences because they will be easier to prove.
We do need to strengthen compliance but we do not want to be heavy-handed with the consumers. We need to make sure we get the balance right in this area. There are a number of technical components that have also been raised to do with the various elements of offences that need to be proved. These need the attention of the Senate committee. We have sought some advice from the government on the range of penalties and the perception that they are much more heavy-handed than existing ones. We have been assured that they are not. At this stage that does not seem to be consistent with the other evidence that is starting to be submitted to the Senate committee. So I am sure those issues will need to be looked at in more detail in the process of the Senate committee review.
Schedule 3, on a different issue which deals with technologically neutral definitions, is one area where it looks like the objective of trying to make the Copyright Act technologically neutral is being put into effect. Unfortunately, many of the other new provisions that are in different schedules do not meet with that same standard. I also flag that in that schedule there is an issue that has been raised by ARIA—that is, that the definition of ‘record’ being changed to include electronic files will actually have a significant impact on the licensing arrangements for digital downloads and, for example, downloading ringtones. We know this is a growing industry. Again I hope that the government will be able to look at those issues to see whether that is an intended consequence of the change.
Schedule 6 deals with a range of new exceptions that are in response to the digital agenda review and the government’s Fair Use and Other Copyright Exceptions Review announced in March 2005. The fair use and exceptions changes introduced by the bill include time-shifting, format-shifting and a range of new exceptions. The new section 111 of the bill makes it legal for people to make a film or sound recording of a broadcast—for example, to tape a TV or radio program at home for their private and domestic use in order to play it at a more convenient time. The government has addressed some of the major issues of previous drafts, dealing with problems like taping for another family member to watch et cetera. However, there are still some concerns that the new definition has some odd limits. I will put these as questions rather than anything else at this stage. Is it intended that we cover only public broadcasts but not podcasts or webcasts? This is one of the queries where looking ahead at what might be a growing area is an important thing for us to do. Again I flag the question: what does domestic use mean? Does it mean that there should be some sort of geographic limit—that is, you can only watch it in your own house—or does it really mean that you can only use it for your personal use? Maybe you can take your video to the beach house with you on the weekend and watch it there. Surely these sorts of things are not supposed to be restricted. We do need some clarification on how that wording is to appear and to see whether there are better words that could be used.
The format-shifting provisions in part 2 of schedule 6 introduce a number of provisions which make it legal to reproduce material such as books, newspapers and periodicals, photographs, sound recordings and films in different formats for private use. This means, for example, that people can transfer music from CDs they already own onto their MP3 players et cetera. I note that the bill places restrictions on the type of format shifting that an individual can do and restricts the number of copies that can be made. The bill explicitly requires the destruction of temporary reproductions.
The popular attention that has been given to the one positive aspect of these provisions—allowing some recognition of MP3 players—has, I think, overlooked some of the other real questions as to whether the format-shifting provisions are in line with technology and the needs of consumers. I have already gone through the example of the problems this might cause if the one-copy rule stops people being able to store a copy on both their portable music player and their PC of material that they have legitimately purchased. Also because many of these provisions are technologically specific, which is contrary to the bill’s stated objective of being technologically neutral, there are odd inconsistencies that allow copying from one format—say, VHS to DVD—but not between formats: for example, from DVD to DVD. That does not seem to have any logic and indicates a lack of understanding of current and emerging technologies. Presumably, we do not want to be back here when the next era of DVDs, or whatever the next thing that comes out, is produced to say that it is okay to copy from DVD to the next format. What we are really trying to restrict is people just being able to use material for their own use and on single occasions, if you like.
Nevertheless, copyright owners are very nervous about the extent of increasing flexibility and giving an individual consumer too much leeway in making multiple copies and how this might be abused. I think this will be a major issue that the Senate committee members will have to get their heads around as to whether there is a better way of doing it. I do not think these questions are easy ones to answer so it is a shame that the Senate committee will not have more time to look at some of these complex issues.
The certain purposes provisions that are set out in part 3 of schedule 6 insert a new section 200AB that allows the use of copyright material without a copyright owner’s consent in certain circumstances. They are subject to an overarching test which is set out in proposed subsection (1) and for permitted particular purposes such as use by libraries and archives, by educational institutions, by those with disabilities and for the purposes of parody and satire. I do not think the four areas that have been outlined are contentious, although I know that some submissions to the Senate committee do not believe that the parody and satire exception is necessary. But the drafting that requires the interpretation of the general three-step test in proposed subsection (1), and then the interpretation of each purpose, has been very critically received in the industry and by consumers, albeit for different reasons.
The three-step test—the special case that does not conflict with normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright holders—does come from international law and international agreements, but there is some concern expressed that this should be more of a drafting question for the legislature, not an interpretive question for the judiciary, and therefore does not need to be expressly set out in the bill. The approach that the government has taken is, I think, under major scrutiny. Some groups oppose this so strongly that they argue that it would be better for an overall flexible fairness test to be applied, which they believe would work in a much better way. Obviously, that would require a major rethink and a major redraft of provisions. Other issues are more specific—for example, the libraries argue that being a library should make them a special case and that each of the other steps should not have to be separately proven. The multilayered approach is confusing and it does not necessarily serve the purpose that might have been intended. Others query whether the ‘commercial purpose’ phrase would encompass their cost recovery rather than a fee that might be charged by an organisation that was operating for profit.
The Australian Digital Alliance argue that the combination of the tests in this provision will stop certain actions from operating even though they have been found elsewhere around the world to be TRIPS compliant. Examples are search engines that might be developed to improve accessibility to the web for obtaining legitimate copyright material. Obviously, it would be silly if, under the auspices of us introducing internationally consistent legislation, we were actually making our laws more stringent than ones that apply elsewhere. Practical problems have been raised with me, like the use in new section 200AB(3)(b) of the words ‘educational instruction’ rather than the broader ‘educational purposes’ test and whether this is an intentional limitation or whether it is perhaps just an oversight in the drafting.
The fair dealing provisions for research or study, which are found in part 4 of schedule 6, are new provisions which narrow the exception for research and study. Instead of the current exception that permits copying of 10 per cent of material or more depending on a range of ‘fairness’ factors, the new provision makes the 10 per cent an absolute maximum. The new subsection 40(5) will be more restrictive than the current arrangements, so issues such as whether the material is out of print, unavailable or only available overseas will have no impact in determining whether or not it is legitimate for an individual student to access or copy more than 10 per cent of material. I believe that these provisions seem unnecessary, although the government has argued that they are required by the US free trade agreement. Whether this claim can withstand scrutiny will be tested in the Senate committee.
There are a number of other provisions which I do not think I will have time to go through. There are concerns, for example, about how the copying of library and archived material will work for interlibrary loans. I think the libraries have raised concerns about that. There are concerns that the provisions that allow for copying for preservation purposes by key cultural institutions are being limited to Commonwealth, state and territory institutions established under law. I have to say I really cannot see why the industry groups have a strong concern with that. I would need to be convinced of why that area needs to be broader, but no doubt those arguments will also be made in the Senate committee.
However, I do think that only being able to produce a single copy seems to run contrary to best practice and is outdated in the digital environment. If a copy is being made for preservation purposes, does it really matter that two copies are being made for backup? Again, does it really matter if a copy is made for preservation purposes before material is deteriorating, rather than waiting for it to deteriorate and then saying that these provisions kick in? That does not seem to be the best way of dealing with maintaining appropriate collections of national significance. Given that the provisions are restricted to institutions that are set up under Commonwealth, state and territory law, I do not think that we will be granting a massive exception to a wide range of people who could abuse the rights being given under these provisions. It also does not seem to be necessary for the commercial test to apply in this instance, because the nature of the organisations that are able to benefit from this provision is very restricted, and most of them would be operating not for profit.
There are a number of other issues. The purpose of the amendment on the making of a communication in schedule 7 is to clarify the intended scope of the communication right. As I said at the beginning, I understand that the issues of concern in terms of caching and other things seem to have largely been dealt with, although I understand that there are still some negotiations going on. Similarly, with the schedule 8 provisions, particularly the new section 28A, I understand that there are negotiations going on where both sides are endeavouring to find a better way to draft those provisions dealing with a communication in the course of educational instruction. Let me repeat for the record that our concerns in those debates will be to see whether or not schools and educational institutions are going to be disadvantaged. If there are going to be significant costs or administrative burdens put on them that are new to the existing ones, we will be very wary of supporting provisions that will do that.
Similarly, although it might seem minor, with part 3 of schedule 8—the insubstantial parts of works in electronic form—I noticed that CAG, representing the schools sector, argue that this change will effectively cost schools a lot of time and money, something in the order of $14 million. They do note that this reflects lobbying that has been going on by CAL in the last few years about the cherry picking of electronic material, but we do need to ensure that the discount that schools get for insubstantial copying does retain some meaning and that we do not penalise schools for something that individuals would be able to do. Obviously, the statutory licensing regime can cover these issues, but if what it ultimately hides is a major cost increase for the educational sector we would be very concerned about that.
I am sorry to be jumping around a bit but can I turn to part 5 and the new section 200AAA that deals with caching. As I flagged, I know that people are working on how these provisions will work. Everyone seems to support the aim, but there is a bit of concern in the drafting. There is a concern about whether passive caching is covered where a copy is saved automatically onto a computer. We have been advised that this may be covered by the temporary copying protection that is found in sections 43A and 43B, but this should be made clearer. I note also that APRA wants clarity that existing protections remain, including not being able to download from file-sharing sites and other things as part of the deal in dealing with these issues, and they seem to be legitimate issues to be taken on board.
Labor supports the provisions in schedule 9, introducing new offences to tackle unauthorised access and use of subscription and encrypted broadcasts. We understand that schedules 10 and 11, dealing with the Copyright Tribunal, are changes that are broadly supported and will enhance the jurisdiction procedures of the Copyright Tribunal.
Finally, I will spend a little time on schedule 12: technological protection measures. The bill introduces a new scheme to create a more secure environment for copyright owners to release their copyright materials. It introduces a liability scheme to target people who circumvent TPMs, in addition to those who manufacture or supply devices or services used for circumvention. As we know, these TPMs are technological locks that copyright owners use to stop their material from being copied or accessed. TPMs are also used by owners to support business models for distributing materials such as films and music online and self-protecting against increased privacy issues.
The exposure draft on technological protection measures was the subject of widespread consultation. As I said at the beginning, these are generally considered satisfactory to most stakeholders. However, the liability scheme in the bill includes specific exemptions, including creating a worthy exception for region-coding devices and allowing Australian consumers to use multizone DVD players. This is an issue that was a major annoyance to consumers, but I might flag that there are some concerns that the drafting of the combined reasons—I think the words are ‘partly for commercial purpose’—may mean that, rather than protecting copyright material, the exception still allows distributors to be able to use these locks. I have not had the time to give the matter the attention it deserves, but we will be looking at that and of course senators will take account of those issues.
I note that a number of recommendations from the LACA committee have not been picked up, although I have been assured that most of those will now be dealt with in regulations. I am also concerned that the exemptions that apply to consumers only seem to work effectively if a consumer has the technical know-how to be able to use it, as the exception does not allow someone else to do it. I think these are simple measures that do not seem to have been dealt with. I am sure that the other exceptions, such as obsolete TPMs, which I think will be picked up in the regulations should deal with those other issues. But we will need some ongoing consultation in that area. I am sorry to have taken slightly more than my allocated time, but it is a complex bill and we look forward to working with the government on resolving these outstanding issues. (Time expired)
Copyright is very important in encouraging and rewarding creative work. It ensures that creators are fairly remunerated for their work. It fosters creativity and spurs on the distribution of new and original works. It is the cornerstone of the successful development of cultural industries and a guarantee that a creative author of a particular work receives financial recognition for his or her efforts. As is to be expected in the creative field, technology is constantly evolving and our laws must keep pace with this evolution.
Amendments contained in the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 will ensure that our copyright laws remain amongst the best in the world, while extending greater flexibility to consumers. Keeping pace with changing technology is not easy. When this government passed the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act in 2000, the legislation was groundbreaking, putting Australia at the forefront as one of the first countries in the world to update its copyright laws to deal with the digital revolution.
But since then the internet and digital technologies have created new challenges and opportunities all affecting copyright. For consumers, more copyright material is available online and can be easily transferred into different formats. Copyright owners have new distribution channels. But the owners also face challenges, such as widespread unauthorised file sharing of music and films. As it stands, millions of Australians are technically breaking our copyright laws every time they reproduce copyrighted material for personal use—everything from copying music from CDs to MP3 players to recording a television broadcast to be watched with family or friends at a later time.
The bill gives people who own copies of certain types of material the ability to copy that material into different formats. For example, books and magazines will be able to be scanned so that they can be used in digital devices. People can also copy music from a personal music collection into a different format. For example, privately owned CDs, audio tapes or vinyl records will be able to be copied into MP3 or other digital formats to use in an iPod or in a computer. The case of copying musical material into digital format is a very pertinent example of why our copyright laws need updating to keep abreast of this modern technology.
This year Australians will spend around $30 million on digital music downloads and recent research done by business information analysts IBISWorld predicts that the figure will double by next year. By 2010, it is expected that the figure will have grown exponentially to be worth $200 million. That is a huge increase and it is proof that the way we access, use and listen to music is transforming our entertainment quite rapidly.
The CD market has matured as consumers turn to digital music players such as iPods and make more use of features such as iTunes and mobile ringtones. In fact, by 2010 the mobile phone ringtone market is expected to post double digit growth, which is double the predicted growth rate for the total recorded music market. Obviously, our local music industry has to embrace these new technologies and the law must always keep pace with them as they emerge.
The bill also allows other forms of media to be copied into different formats to suit the changing face of technology. For instance, analog copies of movies and documentaries will be able to be copied into digital format—that is, to DVD format. The bill also extends the right for libraries, museums, archives, education institutions and people with a disability to access copyright material for the purpose of teaching. By providing more flexibility in using copyright material for socially useful purposes, we are opening up a whole new sphere of online learning for members of the public and giving people with disabilities the tools to access material which they may not have previously been able to obtain. Hand in hand with this increased flexibility is a strengthening of copyright protections for these new materials.
Given the potential of technology and its rapid development, copyright owners face an uphill battle to protect their interests into the future. The Australian Institute of Criminology has stated:
Privacy has become a growth industry, so much so, that it may strain the capacity of governments to control it.
The AIC has already reported that the advent of digital technology has further enhanced the possibility for forgery, plagiarism and other offences against intellectual property. I understand that the agency will be researching the nature and extent of piracy and counterfeiting in Australia. The reality is that it is increasingly easier to infringe copyright, so this bill introduces reforms to combat online copyright piracy and piracy which takes place in the wider community.
A 2001 report commissioned by the Australian Copyright Council and Centre for Copyright Studies reported that for the period 1999-2000 Australia’s copyright industries contributed $19.2 billion in industry gross product. In terms of value-adding, this represented 3.3 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product at that time, proving that the value-added contribution by our copyright industries is of significance to the overall Australian economy.
Copyright reliant industries are also a significant employer in Australia. The most recently available figures indicate that in June 2000—the figures are not totally up to date but they are an indicator—about four per cent of Australia’s workforce, or around 345,000 people at that time, were employed in copyright related industries. I suppose we can extrapolate from that that the figure will have expanded in more recent times. This is comparable to employment levels in sectors such as government administration, defence and personal and other services.
The industry also has a growing employment profile, with job numbers increasing from around 312,000 in 1995-96 to nearly 345,000, which I mentioned, in 1999-2000—representing an average annual growth rate of 2.7 per cent. Again, if we extrapolate that and go forward six years we can see that it will have increased by about 16 per cent since then. These statistics underline the importance of getting our copyright laws right and protecting income, jobs and exports that Australia relies on but, at the same time, having a strong and flexible enforcement regime.
I wish to comment briefly on the concerns of the shadow minister. She was stretching the elastic a bit when she asked whether we could record material for personal or domestic use but it would not be useable outside the home. My advice is that, if you are using a recording device while jogging, that does not offend. If you are playing music in your car, that does not offend. Where it would have an implication would be in recording film or music clips—the hand-held devices which would come into channel B, which we are likely to see in the not too distant future. You can understand that that would offend because that is the very field which such technology will deliver to the public.
The bill is sensible and I commend the minister. I believe the bill will ensure that Australia remains at the forefront of copyright control. I commend the bill to the House.
Copyright law is an essential protection for those in creative communities because it is the means by which their endeavours and artistic creations, their work, their productivity, become remunerated because their product is protected by law and the use of and copying of that product is not permitted otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the legislation. But what was once a relatively simple and easily understood field of law has become increasingly complex and dense over time.
I was responsible for what I hoped to be some simplification of the law when I commissioned, as the Minister for Justice, the copyright convergence report which tried to ensure that we expressed the obligations of the copyright law in media neutral terms so that it applied irrespective as to whether a work was produced on paper or electronically and recognised that, as we moved into an increasingly converging world, our legislation also had to adapt and be responsive to it. I recognise that, since that time, much has changed in the legislative field and much has been necessary in relation to that change, but one of the unfortunate things that has happened alongside this change is that we have not simplified the law; we have made the law much more complex, much more dense.
One requires scholarship of an inordinately high degree to simply understand what the basic obligations are in a number of areas. It is increasingly a field dominated by specialist lawyers and one which the ordinary layperson is likely to find themselves entirely excluded from understanding. That is the case with the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 we are addressing today. The legislation we address today largely arises out of the obligations that we accepted when we entered into the US free trade agreement.
I was privileged to serve on the House of Representatives committee which reported to the government on the exceptions that should apply so that Australian consumers would not have their access to material which was previously permitted to be reproduced without restriction restricted further by the free trade agreement. But of course the free trade agreement had to be taken into account and it imposed obligations on Australia. Interposing, might I say that it is ironic that, despite all the talk about how the free trade agreement was going to benefit Australia, since its passage the terms of trade in Australia-US trade have turned against Australia. We have less trade with the United States than we had previously; the United States has more trade with us than it had previously. Economically the good that was supposed to be had—the billions of dollars of enhancement that our economy was supposed to receive in relation to be free trade agreement—has proved to be a chimera. Certainly, to date, notwithstanding the appointment of Austrade officers across the United States to deal with the upsurge of interest in that country in Australian exports, sadly, quite the opposite has occurred.
It must, at least I hope, be cause for some second reflection for those who so passionately argued the case that this would open up the opportunity for a large trade advance for Australia—if indeed the pattern does not change soon. We get these things oversold to us far too often and I think we were oversold the benefits of the free trade agreement with the United States. But, nonetheless, one of the areas that we have to adapt to now is to the changes in the copyright regime.
I regret that the government has not picked up in their entirety the recommendations made to it by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its report Review of technological protection measures exceptions. The government’s response has been tabled with the legislation. It picks up perhaps two-thirds of the recommendations of the House of Representatives committee and rejects about one-third. But key amongst those propositions which it rejects are those of the underlying philosophy of approach. Our recommendations 8 and 9 were that the government adopt an approach, which we set out in our report at paragraphs 3.55 to 3.64, in relation to the ‘particular class of works, performances or phonograms’ criteria in article 17.4.7(e)(viii) of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement when preparing the implementing legislation; and further that the government adopt the committee’s approach, set out in paragraphs 3.87 to 3.96 of the report, to the credibly demonstrated actual or likely adverse impact criterion in article 17.4.7(e)(viii) of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement when preparing the implementing legislation.
The government, rejecting those propositions, took alternative advice including the advice of its own advisers in relation to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and has substituted an alternative set of approaches. That set of approaches is far more prescriptive. It is less sensitive to Australian interests and those that the committee proposed. I remind members of the House that the parliamentary committee is a committee chaired by a government member, made up of a majority of government members, but which, on this occasion, made, I think, a unanimous report. I certainly do not recall any dissent from the ultimate report. It was a report that dealt, I thought, in a very timely way with very complex matters and the balance that we had proposed was one which was in Australia’s interests. I rather regret that those particular recommendations, were not proceeded with. Indeed, I think it will create difficulties in the future because, wherever else in their response to our recommendations that the government have said, ‘We don’t believe that the evidential base or necessity for a particular exception has yet been established,’ they refer back to that criteria as having to be met before reconsideration would be given. That sets a bar that I think is too high.
The specific matters where I welcome the approach of the government is where they have agreed that the code arrangements on disks which try to limit the utilisation of those disks to particular geographical areas will not be regarded as technological bars that are privileged under the agreement. In other words, you can legitimately purchase and use devices to ensure that, if you buy a CD or a DVD which is geographically designated to play in only a particular region, you can play it in Australia. That is a smart acceptance of a recommendation that we put forward.
We were also keen to see the government look at format shifting in a much more comprehensive way. We made recommendations suggesting that be looked at because, in a world of convergence, people format-shift. It is quite a legitimate thing to do. The government has said that it will look at this further, but there was a key opportunity missed here and it will be hard to deal with it in the future because, if we do not set it up at the beginning, there is always going to be immense pressure from the owners of copyright to prevent there being further exceptions because they generate their remuneration from it.
I started out saying that it is perfectly legitimate and proper to have copyright laws to protect the intellectual property and creativity of those in the production of works and, indeed, those down the chain who produce, license and sell copyrighted materials. But, on the other hand, there is a very substantial public interest. Our committee said that there was a public interest in making certain that people can use these materials without undue restraint. The government really ought to know, and does know, that format shifting is something that Australians do routinely. To the extent that it is a technical breach of the copyright laws, we have missed an opportunity to tidy them up and to specify where those limits are in a practical way, consistent with what I believe to be the spirit of the US free trade agreement. That opportunity was not taken.
I also regret that our recommendation 27 in paragraph 4.169 was not taken up. That was that the proposed exceptions to liability for circumvention for fair dealing with copyright material for criticism, review, news reporting, judicial proceedings and professional advice, and the inclusion of copyright material in broadcasts and the reproduction of copyright material for broadcasting, be included as permitted exceptions. The government did not accept our recommendation for fair dealing with copyright material for criticism, review, news reporting, judicial proceedings and professional advice. The argument that the government made that the evidence did not sustain the case is just nonsense. It recognises that submissions were made but, for reasons which I find completely unfathomable, it says that it did not meet the requirements of article 17.4.7(e)(viii). I have already expressed my concern that the government rejected our in-principle approach to that article and how it should be applied. I think that is a matter of considerable regret but, even on the terms of the government’s own alternative formulation, how it could reach the conclusion that those particular matters should not be legitimate is beyond me.
I understand that this legislation will do nothing to improve the clarity, the ease of access or the capacity to understand copyright legislation. Copyright legislation now is a bugger’s muddle as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned. It is impossible to understand, dense and impenetrable. Some of that complexity is unavoidable. At a future date, one would hope we have the opportunity—if we are not too constrained by extra treaty legislation obligations that we accept—to run a bright line through all this and clarify it so that we can get back to simplified legislation that expresses the fundamental principles with less impenetrability and less complexity. That may be an idle dream, because every dot and comma in copyright legislation is potentially worth hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to owners of copyright entitlements, but it is an attempt that should be made and certainly the fundamental principles of copyright law have been obscured for a very long time in a mass of detail.
This legislation does not improve that situation. It is not bad legislation; it is not immoral legislation. It is a fair attempt to deal with some of the issues that were thrown up by the treaty, and the treaty itself imposed some complexities. I regret that the government did not take the philosophical approach that we recommended in relation to the exceptions that are permitted. There still remain a number of areas where people will return in the future to look at particular exceptions that are appropriate or may be appropriate for addition at a later stage. I think the government has created a framework that will be hard to operate and difficult to apply in terms of those future reviews. But I conclude by acknowledging that the government did accept two-thirds of the recommendations of our committee, so I should give it two-thirds of the credit for goodwill in relation to the process and restrict my criticisms to a modest level, given that circumstance.
I know that this is not an easy area; I have had ministerial responsibility for it. I do not pretend that at the time of my leaving office copyright law was less complex than it had been when I started. In fact, I think that I was probably one of the people who started out with a starry-eyed idea that we could have a simplification and move to a media neutral approach, deal with convergence and do it all in a way that would be relatively accessible. I think we did at least get to a media neutral convergence approach, but it was not any more accessible; it was more complex. The pattern of increasing complexity has continued, and this legislation now is so dense that I think the attempt of parliamentarians to come to grips with it, unless they spend a very considerable period of time examining it with the benefit of expert advice, is limited. That is true of any artist or any creative person. It is true of those entering into the business of licensing copyright materials or selling it, retailing it. Certainly it is not legislation that invites you to understand the principles at first blush and on first reading. It is very dense and very difficult.
I thank the government for having the good grace to pick up the majority of the recommendations of our committee’s response. I leave on record the criticisms about the basic approach to the exceptions in the legislation, and I would hope that at some stage someone wiser than I or those who have had charge of this matter in the past will find a way to express the key principles of copyright law a little more simply and a little more accessibly, because if we keep going this way we will have something rivalling the tax act in its size for copyright law, and the basic underlying objectives will be lost in a maze of detail.
I find it very refreshing to have a former minister concede that he might have been wrong or that he might not have been able to fix the set of problems he faced while he was a minister. The attempts of governments and ministers to regulate and deal in areas as complex as copyright law, despite the best of intentions—starry-eyed or not—do not always mean that you can fix it once and for all and that you can do it necessarily very easily or readily in an area as difficult as this.
That being said, I wish that when the member for Denison was minister, despite looking at these areas of the new technologies and so on, he might have looked at some of the key issues that are dealt with here in our debate on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006, particularly fair use. I was born into a penal colony in New South Wales. It moved on from its definition of that to a colony of the empire and then to a self-governing colony which was part of the Commonwealth of Australia. But let us look at where we started and the way in which we have treated people up until now and the way in which they got here in the first place. Many people committing relatively minor crimes were taken in a vast grab bag of legal procedure, legal process and sets of rules which said, ‘If you do this, you’ll cop seven or 14 years of transportation or you may get life; if you go too far and do too much, then you could hang by the noose at Tyburn Gate.’ So the lucky people, I suppose, ended up coming to the penal colony of Australia. But if you look at what very many of them came for within the context of the time, you will see that they came for relatively minor things, although there were certainly some dedicated criminals who were relatively big-time in what they did.
But the principle is this: if you create a set of laws that will make criminals of most people in a society, you can lock a whole lot of them up but you may in fact continue a regime in which people are innately criminal in their activities; they are innately unlawful in their activities. And what have we got with regard to the copyright amendment act? We have that very situation. If you look at the way people actually do things with regard to copying material—and have almost from time immemorial, certainly in the modern era—you will see that most of what people do in the act of taping video programs and watching them at a later date is unlawful under our legislation. It is illegal; effectively it is a criminal act, and we have put people in the same category as our original settlers. Part of the revolution in this is that we might say, ‘What you’ve been doing all this time’—and I am as guilty as hell in that regard, as most other people might be—‘is something we have said is legally not on but we will not punish you necessarily, except for those sets of enforcers from particular publishing companies who have gone to raid people and put them in the slammer.’
I do not have a problem at all with us dealing with people who are pirating material for active sale to the broader community. The problem was with CDs, DVDs and other material—and, prior to that, tapes or whatever—and selling those for profit. The problem has always been with private use. We have not, I think, throughout the whole history of our dealing with the Copyright Act, ever put Australian private users in the central place.
Believe it or not, the Americans have had fair use provisions for a great deal of time. We have been stuck in a position where we have said, ‘What you’re doing is not right and we’ll punish you if you get caught.’ So I think the changes here, particularly in regard to fair use, are very important. What are those fair uses? One is time-shifting, which I have been talking about—making it legal for people to tape TV or radio programs at home for their private or domestic use in order to play them at a more convenient time.
Now, the notion that, having paid for something in the first place, you have to watch it at that particular time and no other is foreign to the way we deal with things on a practical basis. A lot of people tape a lot of things and never have time to go and watch them. They may have the intention of time-shifting, but they will only watch a proportion of what they have taped. So the number of things that are copied is disproportionate to the number actually used by the end user. That is probably part of the archival nature of human beings; they store things away, almost bowerbird-like.
If you read all the copyright material in the legislation you will find that the way in which the legislation has dealt with that has meant that every iteration was, previously, an unlawful act, and people could go into the slammer for doing it. People have not taken that material, gone out to the local community hall, bunged it up on a screen and charged people an entry price to come and see it. If they were doing that there certainly would have been absolute harm to the original copyright holders. They would have been done down.
In the past our legislation, properly, has dealt with that, as it has dealt with it here in this legislation. We are saying, ‘Okay, if you do it just for your own use, in the normal way people do it at home, then it’s okay.’ This is a major step forward. The member for Denison should have grabbed this while he was the relevant minister. And he has paid his obeisance to the parliament and laid his guilt before us in terms of what he could and could not do.
This is partly constrained by the fact that attitudinally we have had a mindset that we could not go this far because copyright has been a straitjacket, where those who own it—not the beneficiaries at the end, the musos or the people who write the books, but fundamentally the major companies—had demanded a really strict regime in regard to copyright. We know what the effect of that has been in the Australian market in terms of access of individuals to that material. But there have also been constraints on the market because we took so much of our material from England, being part of the old empire and Commonwealth, and we held the United States out and stopped them getting to the market with cheaper books, when that was the game in terms of what material was there and whether you could have competition in relation to that.
We also extended this very British notion that we needed to keep this straitjacketed, whereas the Americans had a much stronger fair use provision and argued that if people were not seeking private profit for it they should not be criminalised. Actually, this is a bit difficult because one of the things we are dealing with here is how you flexibly deal with this area and the dynamics of change in a digital era.
In the analog era—of copying stuff on a gestetner or a photocopier, or copying tape to tape—unless you had a very big and very costly process and did it on a privateering basis it was difficult to do those analog conversions and those kinds of duplications. It was of great cost and it was messy. But digitisation has dramatically transformed this landscape. It is now possible to take a full digital copy of material despite the efforts of the major producers to lock those down. And that is something I want to say a little bit more about in a moment. The pirated material of five years ago, which came out as an MPEG1 version of what was being shown in the cinemas—people had taken it by hand-held cameras and so on—were run throughout China and East Asia. They are still available in that sort of format.
There is a capacity now to access this in other ways and to access it digitally, either through downloading through Apple’s site—because Apple has now dramatically expanded what is available through the iTunes site; it is not just music or radio programs—or through a vast number of podcasts. They are provided free; the essential nature of them is that they are in the public domain. But there is other material that they have now started. They started with their Pixar films—very short animated films, starting with the original one when Pixar was founded—and they now have a series of those.
But they have recently dramatically changed the landscape because they are allowing a download of TV series and first release motion pictures. In the original release they had their Pixar films. Even though they were MPEG4 and capable of relatively high resolution, they downgraded that format when they first put them out—they were 320 by 240. In this second iteration they have doubled the size of the picture so that it is 640 by 480. It is almost DVD quality. That creates an entirely new market in terms of the delivery of motion picture material.
But what has happened in the way in which Apple have done this, for instance—and other people are now following them, because Microsoft have launched their Zoom Player, which is a portable media player which is partly dealt with by the provisions that we have here in relation to format shifting—is that Apple have said, ‘Here’s a good which is covered by copyright, but we recognise that under the fair use provisions in the United States you can buy this good in the first place and use it in one particular way.’ But they have gone further and said: ‘If you buy this good from us then we will not only license you effectively to use it on the computer that you originally downloaded it on but also let you download to an iPod and take that iPod with you anywhere you want to in the world to replay it. We will in fact allow up to five different computers to be licensed at any one time if they are in your control.’ Why? Because families have lots of computers these days. It is a family product, and that is the idea in terms of how to do it. So if you legally bought the product and if there is a recompense back to the copyright owner then Apple allows an efflorescence in terms of the formats that it can be used in and the types of technology that it can be used in. You can make it cartable.
There is a greater danger in this area, I think, than what Microsoft has just proposed, because Microsoft has entered the world of being able to share material between different users of its Zoom Player. That is one of the advantages, it has argued. That gets us back to the copyright area that we have seen here in Australia with Kazaa, I think it was—one of the peer-to-peer networking companies. It was set up and made enormous money worldwide but now has enormous debts that it has to pay to people because what it was doing was found to be fundamentally illegal—taking copyrighted material and then swapping that between people. Microsoft potentially puts itself into that position.
I note the density of this bill, which the member for Denison and everyone else dealing with it pointed out, but in this area it is necessarily so, because we no longer live in that analog world and there is the capacity to format shift in a number of fundamental ways. We have to deal with not only the originators of content but of course the fundamental owners of it, and that is the large companies, whether it is the Sony Corporation in America or Apple, which has now bought into Disney studios and will, I think, in the end take over Disney effectively, because Jobs is capable of doing that. He has done this before. There is a dramatic change in the landscape and it is essentially coming from the Hollywood studios, the biggest producers of material that most people want.
There is a correlative thing here that is important for Australia. Our area of advantage is often in the gaming area, and the question of the copyright in gaming is also extremely important because it is digital and can be copied relatively easily. How you protect it is important. So the provisions within this act are trying to allow fair use, either in terms of the time a person watches it or in format—how they watch it or indeed where in the world they watch it. What goes with governing that is a bill which tries to keep pace with a very rapidly moving area.
We have seen from the major companies, the companies in Hollywood but also the distributors, a range of different technologies to keep that copyrighted material locked down. There is a young fellow who has just broken Apple’s locks on the iPod and he says that it is now possible to take what is available from their iTunes store, which was only playable on iPods, to a Zoom Player or to Toshiba’s player. There is another element of this: even though someone is capable of doing it, what is the industry’s response going to be to something that in fact breaks the monopoly of a particular company? Microsoft argues that they will not take that approach, but all the signals are that they will lock it down and just have a single siloed approach in order to try to protect their market.
But it is also the case that this bill needs to deal with much more advanced algorithms to protect data and to protect copyrighted material. They are available now and are coming to market with the advent of HD-DVD, high-definition DVD, from Toshiba and other members of the consortium that they are involved in. Those discs will take about 15 gigabytes of information. The complementary one that is in competition with it is the Blu-ray DVD, which will in fact double that. It will take about 29 to 30 gigabytes of information.
Why are they around? What they have done is to take the same DVD disc that we have been using, which is the same as the CD disc, and change the type of laser that they are using from red through to blue, and with that better laser they can write smaller pits and dramatically increase the amount of material that is placed on any particular disc. That is necessary because high-definition television and high-definition programs are much more rich, not in the content, because that is the same, but in the level of presentation, the degree of richness of the image. It has about five times the amount of storage that you would need. As that penetrates the market for time-shifting purposes and format-shifting purposes, that will need to be taken into account as well.
There is one other piece of technology that should be emerging this year, running strongly into next year, and that is an entirely different approach from the DVD approach to storing content. It takes what is virtually a 3-D bubble and puts the material at different layers. Whereas you are looking at 30 gigabytes for a Blu-ray DVD, this takes that up about 10 times, so that is 300 gigabytes being stored in just one block of information. It is in the nature of the capacity to store high volumes of information and to then rapidly transmit that from its originating source, but the companies that own it need to be able to lock it up.
The other element of this that is important to what happens down the track is the way we deal with the normal fair use provisions that we have had in the past, which this bill directly deals with, in terms of our great institutions of learning. Because so much has now been digitised, we actually have to think about this in different ways. If you think about the way the parliament has addressed this problem of getting information from the media and providing that in a timely way to members of parliament, they have used the old cut-and-paste method with newspaper articles. They physically put them in. Now they make images of them as PDF, portable document format, images and place them at the disposal of members as images. There are a whole range of other ways in which it can be done, such as directly electronically, and that is gradually being done.
There is a series of problems for universities in this age. A whole series of universities have tied up with Google and allowed their material to be scanned and put into Google search engines and offered to the world, some as copyrighted material and some not as copyrighted material. This is a great challenge to the whole world of existing copyrighted material in written form, when you are dealing with the world of books—and some of our libraries are participating in that. The reaction of industry in the first place was simply to say that they were not going to do it, which is why Google suspended it.
This is a dense piece of legislation, but it necessarily needs to be so. This bill has caught up with the times—the times have finally been recognised. In the past 50 years our capacity to use and store material at a different time or in a different format has finally been recognised. This bill says it will not be unlawful to do that—and it is about time it were so. I am glad about that not only for myself but for all the commonality of people who are otherwise designated as criminals or, in the colony of New South Wales, as participating in unlawful behaviour. I congratulate the Attorney-General on taking this major step and I commend Labor’s approach to the bill. (Time expired)
in reply—I thank all members on both sides who have participated in the debate on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006. It has been a very measured and sensible discussion about very complex and difficult issues. The debate has reflected an enormous amount of goodwill, which we do not always see in this chamber. I appreciate the observations that have been made by the member for Gellibrand, the member for Hinkler, who has had a longstanding interest in these issues, the member for Denison and the member for Blaxland.
I think these reforms are very significant. They cover a wide range of areas. I have been personally seized of the importance of progressing these matters at an appropriate pace but achieving substantial reform. It is important to understand the position I come from. I think creative activity is important. People will only engage in creative activity if they are properly rewarded. Copyright is one of those areas of intellectual property protection that we have to acknowledge. It plays a very important part in ensuring that Australians who are innately very creative and skilled, but do not always have market size on their side, are able to benefit from the work they undertake.
These are sensible and balanced initiatives to ensure that we properly reward people but do not unreasonably disadvantage consumers. Some of the reasons for reform have flowed from the free trade agreement with the United States. That has certainly prompted me to look at these issues, because we have to fulfil certain obligations that we have entered into with the United States. Certainly, when you look at the law in the United States, fair use has been properly accommodated in a scheme which is reasonably flexible and suits the circumstances of the United States. But we here in Australia have not had the benefit of the same sorts of fair use arrangements. In fact, many Australians were in breach of our law, because it had remained unaddressed over a long period of time. I appreciate the honesty of the member for Denison, who said that he had responsibility for this issue at one time and had not addressed it. When people want to tape at home their favourite program—for me it is probably something like The 7.30 Report or Lateline
Ms Gillard interjecting
‘You should go out more’—I hear the comment! I make the point that taping programs is time-shifting and that, while nobody thought they were really committing an offence, it has been an offence under our law. People are using new technology; they take it up far quicker than I do. My children go around with iPods and other sorts of equipment. When I find a piece of music that I like—that is fairly hard to find—I tape the record and listen to it on the tape deck in my car. Does that say something about me? Modern people put it on their iPods. Having bought the copyright material, they expect that they are able to use it in another form. That seems very sensible to me. What we are trying to do is, in law, deal with these issues.
Equally, you have to give people who own copyright the opportunity to ensure that it is properly able to be enforced. The measures we have been putting in place here, including on-the-spot fines and a whole lot of other measures, give a full range of offences that can be effectively used. We have the technological protection measures that flow out of the free trade agreement. I would like to thank the member for Denison, the member for Gellibrand and my other colleagues who have contributed through the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report on technological protection measures. This was a complex area in which I felt it was desirable that the parliament addressed its mind to these questions before we saw a complex bill. Equally, in relation to these measures, there has been a period in which the government has been involved in very extensive discussions with the wide range of stakeholders.
Although this is a technical area, this bill will have an impact upon our constituents. It will enable them to take advantage of new technology. It builds on our groundbreaking report on the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000, which brought our copyright laws into the digital age, and the major changes that were made in 2004. This government does have a strong record on copyright reform and continues to ensure that, in a period of change, our laws are world-class. The important reforms included new exemptions to make our copyright laws more sensible and defensible, along the lines on which members have already spoken.
The bill is a result of extensive consultation and it delivers on a number of copyright reviews undertaken in the past few years. They include our responses to the fair use and other exceptions review, the review of the digital agenda act amendments, the review of protection of subscription broadcasts, the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee’s review of copyright under the competition principles, the Copyright Review Committee’s review of jurisdictional procedures of the Copyright Tribunal, the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on technological protection measures, and the technical review of all Australian legislation to ensure consistency with the Australian Criminal Code.
It is inevitable in making amendments in this area that there will be areas of disagreement between stakeholders. Not all amendments are well received by copyright owners and not all are well received by users but, as ever, one has to balance rights in the public interest and we believe that this bill goes a long way to achieving that fair compromise and balance. We have drawn on direct consultations with a wide range of stakeholders including private individuals, peak groups representing people with disabilities, owners of copyright works, broadcasters, distributors, copyright collection societies, academics and those in industry. May I commend my department and its officers, who have done an enormous amount of work in ensuring that that consultation took place.
Members will be aware that this bill has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 10 November. Exposure drafts of this bill were made available prior to its introduction to allow interested parties to consider it and prepare submissions. We do intend that amendments that suggest themselves for consideration or those considered by the Senate committee in their response to the submissions and comments they have received will be properly considered. We are open to comments on how drafting can be improved, and I say that particularly to the member for Gellibrand. We are already considering changes to amendments concerning private copying, educational copying and jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal to improve language where suggestions have been made, and we will also be examining the report of the Senate committee.
I turn briefly to some of the observations that have been made. The member for Gellibrand made a point about the number of discussions she has had with particular stakeholders. She has obviously read some of the submissions and picked up those issues. As she considers these matters further I think she will find that other views will be made known to her and she will be involved in the same sorts of balancing decisions that we have been involved in. As I have already said, we will listen to what is said in the Senate committee report and if we can improve the bill we will.
The member for Gellibrand made an observation on the format-shifting measures, to which the member for Hinkler responded, but her interpretation of the measures, asserting that people would only be able to use material in the home, was not correct. Under fair use provisions, interpretation of the measures for private and domestic use does not mean you can use material with copyright associated with it only in the home. The measures certainly include use in the car or when jogging, as the member for Hinkler said—and I would like to see the member for Hinkler jogging with me in the morning! ‘Private and domestic’ means that you cannot sell material, you cannot upload it on the internet and you cannot play it to a public audience. This term has been used for many years and there are already quite extensive interpretations of it.
The member for Denison asked why we rejected the House of Representatives legal and constitutional affairs committee recommendation relating to criteria for additional exceptions. Let me say, without going into the detail of those measures, that we do acknowledge the important work done by the committee in its inquiry. Its recommendations for additional exceptions were of great assistance to us. But we have to take into account our international obligations. In the government’s response to the committee’s report, we noted that changes were needed to ensure compliance with a free trade agreement and also to accord with the requirements of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This has meant that we have to address these issues in a slightly different way to the way in which they are able to be dealt with in the United States, and our responses had to take that into account.
The member for Denison noted that this is a technical area and one that requires legislation that perhaps could be more simple and easy to understand, but part of the difficulty is that it does also reflect our international obligations, as I mentioned, and the way in which we have to respond sometimes requires us to take into account a greater measure of manner and form than I would have liked myself. But I take advice on those matters, and the advice is that the approach that we have taken is judged to be most appropriate.
In conclusion, the Copyright Amendment Bill does introduce significant reforms, but it demonstrates our ongoing commitment to an effective, world-class, up-to-date copyright regime. It will ensure our laws take seriously the need to penalise copyright pirates for flouting the law, while ensuring that ordinary consumers are not infringing the law through everyday use of material that they have legitimately purchased. We look forward to the report of the Senate committee. Once again, I thank the members who contributed in such a measured and well-meaning way to this debate and I thank the House for its support of the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Nairn:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This is one of the most important debates we will have in this parliament during the life of this parliament. The issue that we are debating today—the sale of Medibank Private—will be one of the biggest issues at the next federal election campaign. We know, of course, that Australians do not want Medibank Private sold. We also know that if the Howard government is re-elected it will be sold. There is only one way to stop Medibank Private being sold, and that is to vote Labor at the next election. The position is crystal clear: a re-elected Howard government will sell Medibank Private; Labor in government will tear this legislation up and keep Medibank Private in public ownership. It could not be simpler than that.
Today, in the debate on the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006, we will hear, from speakers from the government side, a repetition of some of the promises that have been made by the Howard government, most particularly by the Minister for Health and Ageing, about what will happen when Medibank Private is sold. Today I want to go through why none of those promises will be kept, why none of those promises are true, and why none of them should be relied on by the Australian people. No-one should be fooled by them.
Of course we should, at this point, remind ourselves that these promises are being made by the Minister for Health and Ageing, who at the last election campaign gave Australians a ‘rock-solid, ironclad’ guarantee—only to smash that guarantee after the election. He has no credibility when it comes to making promises to the Australian electorate, and the promises that have been made in respect of what will happen after Medibank Private is sold are promises that simply will not come true.
We should also at this point remind ourselves that the Howard government has always wanted to sell Medibank Private. When this government came to office, it began hurting Medibank Private by removing the collocation of Medibank Private offices with Medicare offices. At that time it also placed Medibank Private on its asset sales program. Of course, the Howard government has created world records in its ability to sell assets, Telstra included.
Also, at that point, shortly after its election, the Howard government began commissioning scoping studies on the potential sale of Medibank Private. This first occurred in 2002-03, and there was another update in 2004 before it finally decided that it would sell the fund. During the period of the original scoping study, Medibank Private faced a number of financial and operational challenges which saw the government defer its decision to sell. The government also intervened in a number of ways, including an equity injection into Medibank Private and operational improvement plans.
All of this was about making a future sale viable. It was an indication that the Howard government was stuck on its course of selling Medibank Private. During this time, the finance minister became the sole shareholder minister, whereas the Minister for Health and Ageing had also been a shareholder minister prior to that time. However, the minister for health is still responsible for the regulatory and policy arrangements relating to the private health insurance market.
The two things that have been constant about the Howard government are that it has always wanted to sell Medibank Private and, of course as we know, it has always wanted to dismantle Medicare. This has been one of the consistent features of the Prime Minister throughout his political life. He voted against the creation of Medibank, the first universal health insurance system in this country. He voted against the creation of Medicare. He campaigned in opposition against Medicare, pledging to destroy it if he were elected at that stage. And that intention, like the intention to sell Medibank Private, has never gone away.
These days the Howard government says, to much laughter in this House by government members, it is ‘the best friend that Medicare has ever had’. The fact that they laugh when they say it indicates how hollow those words are. Like a child telling a tall story, they laugh at their own audacity; they laugh at their own shamelessness in saying something that they clearly do not believe. So, two constants about this government: they have always wanted to sell Medibank Private, and they have always wanted to destroy Medicare.
Medibank Private is, of course, the dominant force in Australia’s private health insurance market, with almost three million members and a market share of almost 30 per cent Australia-wide. It is the No. 1 insurer in four states. Like most other private health insurance funds, Medibank Private operates as a not-for-profit entity. There are 40 registered health benefit organisations operating health insurance for people, and only five of those are for-profit entities, with a total market share of 31.5 per cent. So, clearly, the health insurance sector is currently dominated by not-for-profits. In a comparative analysis of the performance of Medibank Private against the rest of the private health insurance industry, Medibank Private claims a consistently lower level of management expenses per membership.
The bill before the House today makes the necessary changes to the National Health Act and other amendments to allow the government to sell its shares in Medibank Private. The bill brings to light a number of issues which add to the controversy of the sale. The bill limits foreign ownership and has ‘Australian identity’ rules for directors and sets the location of the Medibank Private head office for five years. After five years, anything could happen—Medibank Private could go offshore.
The bill excludes the National Health Act provisions which would allow the change of Medibank Private’s not-for-profit status to be a disallowable instrument. That is, this bill achieves the result that this parliament will not have a separate debate on whether or not Medibank Private should become a not-for-profit entity—once again, in the long tradition of the Howard government closing down debate in this House.
This bill excludes National Health Act provisions which would allow the Minister for Health and Ageing to examine the impact of the change of status from a not-for-profit to a for-profit organisation on members and premiums and disallow the change on public interest grounds. Clearly, the Howard government wants no inquiry—certainly no open inquiry—about whether this is in the public interest. This bill allows current surpluses of Medibank Private to be redistributed to those who are successful in becoming subscribers to the initial public offering of shares in Medibank Private. Interestingly, the bill includes compensation provisions for compensation for which the fund might be liable in the event that any legal action is taken against the sale—and I will come back to that matter during the course of this speech.
Labor opposes this bill lock, stock and barrel. The government’s decision to sell Medibank Private is based simply on an ideological agenda about privatisation; it is not based on the best interests of Medibank Private members or private health insurance in this country. The government’s assertions that the sale will allow the fund to be more competitive and will put downward pressure on premiums are simply wrong. The government is, of course, seeking to avoid a separate debate about the change of status of Medibank Private from a not-for-profit to a for-profit entity.
When we go through the government’s reasons for selling Medibank Private, we see that they are clearly paper thin, compared to their thick-skinned ideological obsession with selling off this asset. There is no evidence—and I repeat that: there is no evidence—that the sale will reduce premiums or increase competition. Premiums are principally driven by health costs, an issue which the Howard government has failed to adequately address through its health policies. The Howard government cannot guarantee that the sale will have a positive impact on members of Medibank Private and as a result is allowing a six-month notification period to allow members to get out of the fund by way of transfer prior to sale. The Howard government cannot guarantee that the sale will have a positive impact on members and consequently, in addition to the transfer provisions, they are not allowing scrutiny—as I have indicated—of the impact of the change of status of Medibank Private. Medibank Private’s sale will have little or no effect on their current operational requirements or ability to operate competitively. They have recorded large surpluses in recent times and they do have a relatively low management-expense ratio.
I will go through some of the principal arguments that surround this sale, about which the Howard government is not giving the Australian people the truth. The first question is: can it sell Medibank Private without compensating the three million members of the fund? Let us remind ourselves of a bit of history here. The Parliamentary Library, in this building, is well respected. It is independent. It is authoritative. Indeed the minister for health conceded those things in this parliament yesterday. In early September the Parliamentary Library produced a research brief, a paper, indicating that there were legal doubts about the ability of the government to sell Medibank Private without compensating members. That advice became public on a Friday. By Monday the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Nick Minchin, was brandishing legal advice obtained from Blake Dawson Waldron which stated that the library was wrong.
In preparing the Bills Digest for this bill, the Parliamentary Library guide to this bill for the assistance of parliamentary members and members of the public, the library provided a complete rebuttal of the Blake Dawson Waldron advice. We need to remind ourselves that this is an extraordinary step for the library to take. Bills Digests are normally very non-controversial documents, but on this occasion the library has actually blown the whistle on the Howard government and said that in its view this is the circumstance with the sale of Medibank Private: that the three million members of Medibank Private cannot have Medibank Private sold out from under them without being compensated. The only answer the government have given to this is to basically say that the legal advice they have obtained is somehow better than the legal advice from the Parliamentary Library. I ask members of the public listening to this debate to think about the following simple proposition. There is an old saying: he who pays the piper calls the tune. People might like to consider whether independent advice provided by a respected institution like the Parliamentary Library is more likely to be right than advice paid for by a government which is famous for getting the advice that it wants to hear.
I will take you now to the conclusion of the library on the question of whether or not Medibank Private can be sold without compensating members. The library says this:
... it is arguable that members of Medibank Private could be entitled to compensation if the terms of any sale do not adequately account for their right to the benefit of fund assets.
The Bills Digest continues:
The Research Brief—
that is, the earlier library document—
refers to Medibank Private’s 2005 annual report which cites a net asset figure of $653.3 million ... It is this figure in respect of which members’ entitlement is discussed ...
The Bills Digest then says:
... (account would also need to be taken of the Commonwealth’s $85 million equity).
Even if we say that the $85 million together with interest ought to be repaid to the Commonwealth, what the library brief is saying is that there is around half a billion dollars of assets that arguably three million Medibank Private members need to be compensated for if the government is going to sell the fund out from under them. So we are talking about $500 million, or half a billion dollars, of assets and the rights of three million people.
I used to be a lawyer; maybe I still am. I know that these propositions can have arguments either way—of course they can. But the issue is this: if there is any skerrick of legal doubt that this government is about to rip $500 million—half a billion dollars—off three million Australians, then the government ought not to proceed. It ought not to do that to three million Australians about such an enormous amount of money.
Of course, the government pretends it is very brave about all of this. It dismisses the legal advice. It knows what it is doing! Medibank Private members do not have any rights! Consider this: when this government first went out to say that it was going to sell Medibank Private, it basically said: ‘We’re gonna sell it. We don’t know how—trade sale, float it, not sure yet, not even going to tell you. Going to put the legislation through parliament first. Will work that out later.’ What changed this government from that strategy to saying that it would float it so Australians could buy shares in it? The only thing that credibly intervened in that period was the Parliamentary Library’s first advice. It was publicly available on the Friday; by the Sunday the Treasurer was musing about floating it. If legal doubts could drive such an enormous change in the government’s strategy, they must be pretty powerful legal doubts.
And this legislation itself points to the fact that the government are anxious about compensation, because it refers to the fact that there might be compensation flowing from the sale. So do not believe their brave words: Senator Minchin saying, ‘My legal advice is better than anybody else’s,’ or the Minister for Health and Ageing echoing those words. Judge them not by what they say but by how they act. They have retreated and said, ‘Yes, we’ll float it’—I say because of the legal doubts—and the bill before the House today specifically deals with the prospect of compensation. This bill is about a potential half-billion-dollar rip-off, and every Medibank Private member in this country should know that.
Then there is the claim by this government that selling Medibank Private is going to make it more competitive. Once again, this is a ‘trust me’ claim from the Howard government—a government that goes out and gives you a rock-solid, ironclad guarantee and then smashes it as soon as it is re-elected. It is a ‘trust me’ claim because the government has never publicly released the advice it says it has got on that question. If it is not good enough to be released, it is not good enough to be scrutinised and debated and it is not providing any role in the public debate, why should anybody believe the government on it? I most certainly do not. Interestingly, the library’s expert advice in the form of the Bills Digest concludes very powerfully about the government’s claims of increased competition. It says:
The Government argues that the sale of Medibank Private will lead to reduced management costs and allow the fund to pursue new areas of business but it is unclear how these improvements will be realised. The proposition is based on the conclusions of a scoping study undertaken by Carnegie Wiley, however detailed information from the study has not been provided. This means that there is very little publicly available information to support such claims.
There would appear to be nothing, from a regulatory point of view (apart from being able to distribute profits to shareholders), to show that the ‘new’ Medibank Private will be able to do to improve its operations that the current organisation cannot. A privatised Medibank Private would be free from the governance burden that applies to GBEs but it is not clear whether this would significantly reduce the organisation’s management expenses. A publicly listed Medibank Private could potentially improve operational efficiency through the use of additional capital to invest in improved information technology systems or organisational restructuring. However, it is not clear that any reduction in management costs would be greater than the potential increase in costs associated with Medibank Private’s new responsibility to distribute profits to shareholders.
What this is clearly saying is there is nothing about moving Medibank Private from being a publicly owned not-for-profit entity to being a shareholder owned for-profit entity that magically increases its ability to compete. There is nothing on the public record about that.
Senator Minchin says he has this secret study, but he obviously does not trust it enough to put it out in the public domain, and the only analysis one can have of this is the analysis put out by the Parliamentary Library. There might be some benefits from the ability to raise increased capital but then, of course, you have to generate a profit, and that is a burden that is not on Medibank Private now—the need to generate a sufficient commercial profit, year in, year out, to distribute to shareholders to keep them happy with their dividends. In those circumstances, how is competition increased?
Then, of course, one tends to characterise competitive markets as markets that have multiple players. Just moving Medibank Private from being in public hands and not for profit to being in shareholder hands and for profit does not magically increase the number of people competing in the private health insurance sector. The day after the Howard government’s sale of Medibank Private there will be exactly the same number of private health insurers in this country—not one more, not one less. So how is it possible that this in and of itself somehow increases competition? It does not. It is nonsense. The government knows it is nonsense, and the document it relies on is a document it does not see fit to share with the public.
In the same breath, the government says: ‘Oh, it’ll all be more competitive—article of faith. We believe in that when we’re selling things and, because we believe in that, there’ll be downwards pressure on premiums.’ Let us just remind ourselves that the last time the Howard government started making promises about downward pressure on premiums was in 2001. What does the scoreboard show? The scoreboard shows that premiums have gone up almost 40 per cent since, so the government is not very good on keeping promises when it comes to downward pressure on premiums. If there is no increased competition, if there are no increased efficiencies, why would anybody believe that there will be downward pressure on premiums?
You do not have to take my word on that, although you may be prepared to. We should note the words of a respected economic commentator, Terry McCrann. He is certainly someone who is out there as a dry economist. He has said that privatising Medibank Private, particularly by way of float, will introduce a profit motive not only into Medibank Private itself but possibly more broadly across the private health insurance sector and that will be bad news for premiums. What Terry McCrann is clearly pointing to is that, when you put on a company—in this case, Medibank Private—the need to generate year in, year out, a profit sufficient to satisfy shareholders, then that becomes its basic motivation. Someone has to pay for that profit. In a private health insurance company, how will it be paid for? It will be paid for by the premiums of members.
So, just as a matter of logic, premiums will bear an additional burden. But Terry McCrann’s fears go broader than that. He is not just worried about what happens to Medibank Private members—who might well have this additional premium burden put on them—he is worried that if you change Medibank Private, the dominant private health insurer in this country, into a for-profit entity then that will create a domino effect through what now is largely a not-for-profit private health insurance sector and, as a result of that domino effect, that sector will be much more likely to end up being predominantly a for-profit sector. If that occurs, what flows? You have premium levels that need to generate profits for owners. That is No. 1. But I tell you what else happens: you create a for-profit sector that would be putting pressure on government—particularly the Howard government because private insurers so much have the ear of this government—to lift the regulatory burden, which they would describe it as, and to lift the regulation off private health insurance because they want to be out there making profits.
Let us remind ourselves what that regulation is. It is things like community rating. If you were a for-profit private health insurer, would you be cheerfully administering community rating, where everybody pays the same premiums, whereby you cannot put an additional premium on someone who is a bad risk? Of course you would not. You would be beating down the door of the government to ask: ‘Can you get this regulation off my back?’
That is bad news for Medibank Private members, it is bad news for Australians’ premiums and it is potentially bad news for the whole private health insurance sector. It is setting up an environment where we are far more likely to see less regulated health insurance, and that is bad news for everyone who relies on community rating to get them health insurance when they need it. I think Australians, particularly those with a chronic illness, disability or a genetic predisposition towards disease, would want to be thinking about that because, in a less regulated private health insurance environment, they will either be deemed uninsurable or only be able to access private health insurance if they can pay astronomical premiums.
When we look across the issues of this proposed sale we see that they are enormous. Can the government sell Medibank Private without compensating its members? There is a legal argument about that. The government do not want to deal with the legal argument. They want to legislate to try to get away from that legal argument and potentially rip off three million Australians to the tune of more than half a billion dollars. The claims about competition are entirely hollow. They are claims which cannot be sustained by the government. Indeed, they have made no effort to sustain them, except by way of assertion.
On the question of premiums, it stands to reason that if you have to generate a profit then that places an additional burden on premiums—the fact that the current not-for-profit status of the private health insurance sector could end up being changed overwhelmingly to a for-profit status because of the sale of Medibank Private. Also on the question of premiums, the Minister for Health and Ageing has never seen a premium increase that he was not prepared to tick off. Every year he actually ticks off premium increases that have been asked for. And on the question of a privatised Medibank Private, when the minister has been asked about the impact on premiums, he has basically said—with a shrug of his shoulders, as is characteristic—‘You know, if I had to put up Medibank Private premiums and give approval for that, of course I’d do that.’ And up those premiums would go.
This legislation cannot be fixed, it cannot be tinkered with and it cannot be amended in any way which would make it satisfactory. It has simply got to be voted against, and that is what Labor will do. But I am not naive enough to believe that this bill will not pass through this House. It will, through an exercise of the government’s numbers and then it will pass through the Senate, through an exercise of the government’s numbers. But, fortunately, in this case we do have the ability to change the future. We do not have to accept a situation where Medibank Private is sold, with all of the negative consequences that that will have for Medibank Private members and for private health insurance in general. We can change that future by ensuring that we change the government at the next election and that the incoming Labor government tears up this legislation, ensuring that Medibank Private remains where it should be—that is, in public ownership.
We have just had an indication that, if Labor are elected at the next election, the sale of Medibank Private will not proceed, but that will be cold comfort for the premium holders of Medibank Private because the Labor Party, true to their form in the past, will trash private health insurance. The Labor Party have never liked private health insurance, they have never liked the private health insurance rebate and they have never liked any of the reforms which have been made to improve private health insurance. The sale of Medibank Private would be cold comfort for its premium holders because Labor’s track record on private health insurance is not good—it is one to be ashamed of.
In the period from 1986 to 1988 we saw premiums rise by 40 per cent due to direct actions of the Hawke government, including the withdrawal of the Commonwealth day bed subsidy and Commonwealth government support for private health insurance. When John Howard became Prime Minister, the foundations of our health policy were to have community rating for private health insurance, bulk-billing and free access to public hospitals. It is a nonsense to draw the long bow of suggesting that in the future we would not retain these elements, which have always been part of our health policy.
In addressing the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006, I would first like to address the issue of why we should sell Medibank Private. Medibank Private is a government owned private health insurance fund. We currently have 38 health insurance funds. There is no good reason for the government to be in this market. There is sufficient competition and there is portability between health insurance funds. There is no reason to have government ownership of Medibank Private. When the Labor Party were in power they were the kings of privatisation. They privatised Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and ANL. But that was in government. In opposition they have opposed every privatisation. There is no reason for the government to own a private health insurance fund. It would be adequate to have it on the share market. Selling Medibank Private would allow us to do other things, like having an extra $500 million in medical research for the NHMRC and announcing a $170 million research fellowship. It is all part of the overall approach of the Howard government to have disciplined economic management. This is why we have had budget surplus after budget surplus and delivered income tax cuts year after year. It takes a lot of discipline to run an economy which is now worth $1 trillion.
The next issue to address is the issue of a float versus a trade sale. A feature of the private health insurance market is that there are two or three big players in each state market, so it needs to be looked at on a state basis. Medibank Private is generally No. 1 or No. 2 in each of these state markets. The other major players are MBF, BUPA and HBF in Western Australia. The advantage of a float is that you keep the structure of Medibank Private intact. You do not have to face the issue that competition may diminish. All the sale of Medibank involves is a change in ownership. Although not completely analogous, many of the private health insurance funds have gone from being mutuals through the demutualisation process. They have gone from being not-for-profit to being for-profit. Members of these funds have noticed no difference in the way the funds operate. As far as the members are concerned, life goes on and the funds operate as normal.
The third issue to address is the timing of the sale. Currently the sale of T3, the third tranche of Telstra, is underway. It would complicate things to have a second privatisation. We are advised that it takes nine months to complete a full sale, so the best time for the sale would be in 2008. But it is important to pass the legislation now so that everyone has certainty and the company can plan for privatisation in 2008, if we win the 2007 election.
The fourth issue to address is what will happen with premiums. What I can say is that changing Medibank Private from not-for-profit to for-profit will have no impact on premiums. Changing Medibank’s ownership from government ownership to being owned by shareholders will have no impact on premiums. The things that will drive premium rises in the future will be the things that have driven premium rises in the past—improvements in technology, increasing numbers of prostheses and the ageing of our population. Premiums have to be approved by a committee of the government. Funds have to provide good reasons for any premium rise. They have to show how a premium rise will improve their capital adequacy, for example. So the idea that Medibank Private moving from not-for-profit to for-profit will of itself lead to a premium rise is wrong.
In regard to the fifth issue, the legislation has a shareholder cap so that no individual shareholder can own more than 15 per cent of the company. This shareholder cap will last for five years from the time of sale. There are also provisions that any foreign ownership is subject to the Foreign Investment Review Board and that, when the five years is over, any takeover of Medibank Private will be subject to the ACCC. The ACCC have said that they will look at this, and they will look at the state markets. They will look at ensuring that there is no substantial diminution of competition.
The sixth issue that needs to be addressed by this bill is community rating. Community rating has been here for 10½ years under the Howard government, and it will continue into the future. If the government is re-elected, community rating will stay. Community rating is the principle whereby funds pool the risk. The funds do not charge a higher premium for sick people, and they do not charge a higher premium for elderly people. This is important; the Howard government has always stood for it and will continue to stand for it. It is just rubbish for the shadow minister to assert as she did that in some way the sick, the elderly and so on will face higher premium rises in the future. It is a rubbish claim. Community rating will remain. It is a typical scare tactic of the shadow minister to suggest otherwise.
When we look at Labor’s policy on private health insurance, they have never been in favour of the private health insurance rebate. You only have to read the ‘gospel according to St Mark’: The Latham Diaries. Entries include:
13 February 2004—A good meeting this morning with Gillard’s health expert, Stephen Duckett and Hal Swerissen. We’ve worked out a way of dealing with the despised private health insurance rebate. We need to kill it slowly, dismantle it slice by slice.
During the 2004 election campaign, Mark Latham wrote:
Medicare Gold combines my plan for killing the private health insurance rebate with Ducker and Swerissen’s vision for extending federal responsibilities in hospital care. It required a lot of work to model the private insurance implications and to ensure the cooperation of the states, all handled by Gillard.
Some may say: ‘Well, that was Mark Latham. He’s not a member of parliament; he is no longer leading the Labor Party,’ but, looking at an earlier entry from the diary, we find someone who is very much so. In 2000, Mark Latham wrote of the private health insurance rebate:
At different times Beazley has boasted to caucus that it—
that is, the private health insurance rebate—
will go.
When the Howard government came to power in 1996, we faced a situation where the private health insurance level was at 30 per cent. It was falling to the level where private health insurance would not have been sustainable after 13 years of neglect under the Labor Party. Firstly, we introduced private health insurance incentives and then the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. The introduction of Lifetime Health Cover in 2000 saw private health insurance stabilise at 43 per cent and it has remained at that level for over six years, since 30 June 2000.
At the last election, we promised to increase the rebate to 35 per cent for people over 65 and to 40 per cent for people over 70. I heard a lot about how we had allegedly broken promises. That was a promise at the 2004 election, and it was the first piece of legislation we introduced when the parliament reconvened in 2004. But the government is not resting on its laurels on private health insurance. We have announced that we will spend $60 million over four years to make private health insurance even better value for money and will look at enabling private health insurers to extend their cover for preventative health care. When considering chronic diseases, diabetes and so on, it is very important that we allow the funds to manage their population and to focus on preventative health care.
The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will establish an industry website to give people access to unbiased information about health funds and their products. This is a very important part of how a market operates: to have information available so people can make their decisions. As I said earlier, Lifetime Health Cover was a very important initiative, and it has kept the level of private health insurance in this country at a point where it is sustainable.
The government has a great track record on private health insurance, whereas Labor has an atrocious track record on private health insurance. Anyone who holds a premium with any fund should fear the return of a Labor government. We saw what Mark Latham and Kim Beazley said. Look at their track record. It is not good. I support this bill. This bill will allow the government to get out of a business which it does not need to be in; there is sufficient competition already there. I commend the bill to the House.
The Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006, before the parliament today, empowers the government to initiate a sale of the government’s holding of Medibank Private. As you have heard previously, the opposition opposes the legislation. There are a number of issues that are particularly significant in the process aspect of this legislation, which I will refer to in a little while and ultimately will relate to the mishandling of the issue by Senator Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration.
Senator Minchin is renowned in the press gallery and elsewhere as the great hard man of conservative politics. Rarely is there a profile of him without some mention of his mythical toughness—how hard he is to deal with; a strong man who is a great factional operative in the South Australian branch of the Liberal Party—and his being quite a scary fellow. When you read these profiles, you tend to worry that he should not be let out near small children. In practice, though, his record as Minister for Finance and Administration—the portfolio where you do have to be tough, where it is essential for the good governance of the country that you are tough and where it is necessary for good fiscal policy and wider public policy that you are tough—is that he has actually been the Father Christmas of finance ministers.
We have seen in the space of six months, between the end of 2005 and May 2006, the ratcheting up of projections of receipts for government revenue for three financial years, commencing with the current financial year, to about $41 billion as a result of the minerals boom. In other words, the projections for the amount of government revenue over this financial year and the next two financial years increased by the order of $41 billion within the space of six months. Notwithstanding the efforts of Senator Minchin, in the lead-up to the budget this year, and in the budget, the government managed either through increased expenditure or through tax cuts to effectively spend an additional $43 billion.
When was the last razor gang? When were the last serious expenditure cuts? They were years ago. The government has been showered in money through its good fortune from a rapidly escalating demand for our mineral products. This has flowed through company tax receipts and indirectly through income tax receipts, and the government has spent the lot. It is not investing for the future. Very little of that revenue has gone into things like education and training. The government has spent the lot, while Senator Minchin, Father Christmas, has sat there going: ‘Ho, ho, ho! There’s a present for every child.’
It is a good political strategy in the short term because the government can hand out money to all sorts of people, look like they are doing good things and, because there is so much money, still keep the budget in surplus. But it is not going to last. You will see evidence of this in the budget papers themselves. There is an indication of how precarious the finances of the Commonwealth are in the medium term when you look at company tax. You will see that, between 1998-99 and 2007-08, the proportion of total government revenue provided by company tax rises from 14 per cent or thereabouts in 1998-99 to almost 25 per cent projected in the next financial year.
That means the government is relying on a giant ratcheting up of company tax revenues as a basis for handing out largesse throughout the community. All sorts of little grants and fiddles and indiscriminate one-off payments will inevitably not last. That huge ratcheting up of company tax revenue will not last. But old Father Christmas has been asleep at the wheel. He has been there, with his big bag of toys hanging over his shoulder, handing out toys indiscriminately to every backbencher who wandered past. Meanwhile, the underlying structural strength of the Commonwealth finances is eroding. Already the impact is starting to be felt on interest rates.
The budget this year did have an upward impact on interest rates—not a huge impact. It was a modest impact but, nonetheless, it did have an impact on interest rates, and we are now seeing the consequences. Unfortunately, it looks likely that in a week’s time we will see more of those consequences. So it is long overdue that old Father Christmas took off his red suit and his white beard and started to behave like the tough guy he allegedly is. Instead of him letting down the taxpayers of this country by sitting there asleep—having had too many beers after he has gone down the chimney—with his big sack of toys and a big smile on his face, it is long overdue that he started to behave like the tough guy he actually is.
The problem—and this legislation is another example of it—is that his track record on dealing with privatisations is equally poor. He championed the Snowy Hydro privatisation, which federal Labor and Labor state governments supported. Suddenly he had a serious bout of Alan Joneses and belatedly discovered that the Snowy Hydro was a national icon and that, therefore, there were cultural reasons why you could not privatise it. In the long term that is going to cause some problems, I suspect, for Snowy Hydro, particularly for its capital base. But Senator Minchin, that great champion of privatisation, suddenly discovered culture.
Then we had the fiasco with T3—a fire sale at the most inappropriate time. It was in the middle of a giant regulatory battle that was creating great uncertainty about the share price—all a result of the government’s bungling with respect to telecommunications regulation—and that has culminated in the attempted appointment, yet to be confirmed, of Geoff Cousins, the Prime Minister’s confidant, onto the Telstra board as a means of punishing the Telstra board and pulling them into line. So what we have seen is a privatisation being done at the worst possible time. We of course oppose any sale of Telstra, full stop, but we are not in charge.
The government have a different philosophy and that is what they are pursuing. They have done this at the worst possible time and in a way that is calculated to damage the interests of existing Telstra shareholders and taxpayers. To make the privatisation fly, the government have had to trick it up with all sorts of gimmicks and giveaways in order to ensure that they would actually be able to sell the shares. It has been successful thus far. Surprise, surprise!
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Melbourne is talking about the Telstra privatisation. The bill is actually about Medibank Private, and I fail to see the link between the two.
I understand the point of order. I did think some of the earlier remarks were a little difficult to relate to the bill but the member for Melbourne has explicitly related these remarks to the bill and, therefore, he is in order.
I will be very generous to the member for Paterson and get to the point about the Medibank Private sale, which is where I was about to get to in any event. The point is that we have Senator Minchin’s third privatisation agenda—that is, the sale of Medibank Private—before us today in the parliament and, again, he is making a mess of it. This legislation is being put to the parliament to empower the sale of Medibank Private, but the government has indicated that it is going to put off any sale until 2008.
The excuse for this is that it is very difficult to overlap the Medibank Private sale with the T3 sale—the latest privatisation of Telstra. So, particularly given the comments of the previous member, the issue of T3 is in fact directly relevant to the debate before the parliament today. It is relevant because the government itself says it is relevant. Nonetheless, the point here is that, the reason it is going to defer the sale has nothing whatsoever to do with T3 but everything to do with political cowardice.
The government understands that the sale of Medibank Private is deeply unpopular in the community, that people overwhelmingly oppose it—they do not see any reason for it. Therefore the prospect of holding the sale in an election year has made the government run for cover. The claim that somehow this would clash with T3 is total nonsense. It is complete nonsense, and if you talk to anybody in investment banks and the financial markets who actually has expertise in these areas they will tell you that it is complete nonsense. It is all about electoral fears and has nothing to do with the interests of taxpayers and nothing to do with the interests of consumers of health services.
The bill imposes a number of restrictions on the new owners of Medibank Private once it is sold, if the government is returned to office—which, of course, because of the delay in the sale, is the major qualification to whether or not it will ultimately be sold, because Labor will not sell it. These restrictions last for five years and, in effect, require for a period of five years the company to maintain its head office in Australia, to maintain Australian directors and to have no more than 15 per cent share ownership by any one individual or organisation. Thereafter, it is open slather.
The legislation also overrides provisions in the National Health Act which would otherwise preclude Medibank Private from switching to becoming a for-profit company, and it overrides provisions in the National Health Act which would otherwise preclude the Minister for Health and Ageing from seeking to disallow on public interest grounds any sale or any transfer from not-for-profit to for-profit on the part of Medibank Private.
Most significantly, the legislation also contains a provision which ensures that, should there be any legal liability accruing with respect to the existing members of Medibank Private—an issue I will turn to in some detail in a minute—that legal liability will accrue to the new owners. So, in effect, whoever buys Medibank Private will not be able to sue the government, nor will existing members of Medibank Private be able to sue the government with respect to any rights that they may have with respect to the existing reserves, the hundreds of millions of dollars which are reserves of Medibank Private which have been built up by members—of whom, incidentally, I am one. In fact, a number of my colleagues are also in the same category, and I am sure that there are even some members in the government who are members of Medibank Private. So the legislation explicitly shifts that risk from the government. It explicitly says that, if there is any kind of legal action seeking to assert the rights of Medibank Private members with respect to those reserve funds, the risk is borne by the new owner, not by the vendor, the seller, of the organisation.
The government claims that the sale of Medibank Private will drive down premiums through greater competition and more private sector efficiency. The evidence suggests the contrary. There is a considerable risk of further market concentration occurring in private health insurance in this country. It is pretty laughable to call the private health insurance sector in this country a market. It is not a genuine market as such. If you look at the distribution of business, of market share, you will see that there are one or two dominant players in most states, and there is a significant risk down the track, with the sale of Medibank Private, of that leading to a situation where, in one or more states, you have an excessive market dominance. For example, if a new owner were to decide to exit from the Western Australian market—where I think, from memory, Medibank Private has around 17 per cent of the market—that would leave the existing dominant fund in an even more dominant position and an already very thin market even thinner. The claim that greater private sector efficiency will lead to lower premiums needs to be taken into account in the context of the inevitable increase in advertising and administrative costs and the need to pay dividends or profits to owners, which will eventuate as a result of the change—not to mention the high likelihood of substantially higher salaries for the people running Medibank Private which tend to be a natural and almost inevitable consequence of privatisation.
Where this will end up, time will tell, but I think the evidence is overwhelming that the pressure is going to be upward on premiums, not downward. And Australians know that predictions from the Howard government about private health insurance premiums cannot be believed, because the results—the outcomes, the track record—with respect to private health insurance premiums have been horrendous. The pressure is always upwards, well beyond inflation, well beyond the cost of living. So, when the Howard government say to people that this is going to lead to lower private health insurance premiums, most people do not believe them.
I said that it is difficult to see how private health insurance in this country can be seen as a true market. Here we have a market where the government forces people to buy the product and the percentage of Australians who are caught within that net in the middle to higher income bands is ever growing, because the trigger points of $50,000 and $100,000 are not indexed. So the government forces people to buy the product. It sets complicated price rules which determine what price people have to pay at different ages. It microregulates the sector. It massively subsidises it, to the tune of billions of dollars. And now, courtesy of the last budget, it is going to spend $53 million on a campaign advertising the virtues of private health insurance. If that is a private market then I would be fascinated to see what the government sees as government control, because that clearly is nothing like a genuine market for services. So the notion that somehow we are going to see a flourishing of private enterprise courtesy of the sale of Medibank Private is totally misconceived.
The final issue I wish to turn to, which I adverted to briefly previously, is the question of the legal status of the assets of Medibank Private. There is a serious possibility here that the government is seeking to sell something which it does not fully own. Once again, Senator Minchin—Father Christmas—has got himself in a bit of a pickle about this particular problem. Some time ago, a report from the Parliamentary Library indicated that the government may not legally own the members’ reserves—which of course have been built up not by injections of capital from the government but through the premiums of several million ordinary members, including me—and, as a result, may not have the legal right to sell them.
In effect, the government is seeking to hand over Medibank Private lock, stock and barrel to a new private owner and to simply pocket the proceeds without any form of direct compensation to those members of Medibank Private whose premiums have built up those assets—that capital—over that period of time. The government refused to release the legal advice on which it based this assertion. But, in response to the Parliamentary Library report, which indicated that there was a serious doubt about whether or not it owned these assets, it put out a quick and dirty legal opinion, cobbled together over a weekend by Blake Dawson Waldron, indicating that the Parliamentary Library advice was wrong and the government’s position was correct.
The government still refuses to release its original legal advice, and I know why—because it is widely known in finance circles that advice has been provided to the Department of Finance and Administration indicating that the Parliamentary Library is basically right and that there is a big question mark over the legal ownership of all of Medibank Private’s assets. That is why the government is not releasing its original legal advice.
The quick and dirty advice in the wake of the Parliamentary Library’s report really does not stand up to much scrutiny. A lot of it is very tendentious and there is some rather sloppy reasoning in it. One suggestion that I particularly liked was an effective claim that, if the government proceeded down a particular path suggested by the Parliamentary Library, it would be liable to a claim for compensation for just terms on the acquisition of property under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution—in other words, that a particular course of action would imply that the government, through the National Health Act, was acquiring Medibank Private and it would therefore have to pay compensation. There is a slight problem with this reasoning, and that is that the government still owns Medibank Private. So the implicit suggestion in the legal advice is that the government would have to pay compensation to itself as a result of acquiring its own property. It is patently absurd reasoning and an indication of legal advice that was cobbled together at the last moment to suit the government’s argument.
The government has refused to release its advice on this issue, and we know why. If there were no risk that there may be legal action on behalf of Medibank Private members seeking to stake some kind of claim to those reserve funds then why is there a provision in the legislation indemnifying the government against that risk? Such a risk clearly does exist. None of us knows what will occur. The Blake Dawson Waldron advice argues that Medibank Private has no ongoing obligation to members because it can easily terminate them—for example, it can throw me out for no particular reason—but in fact it fails to note that there are provisions in the National Health Act that effectively prohibit it from discriminating against members in that way.
There is a very complex legal argument involved here, but there is a wider moral point, and that is that Medibank Private has been built up over the years by its members, effectively as a mutual. The government has no right to step in and grab those funds and say, ‘We’re going to take them.’ We oppose this legislation. Its mishandling by the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Minchin, is yet another example of his unfitness for the position. He is not a tough guy. He is Father Christmas. He is a stumbler. He is a bumbler. He has no idea what he is doing. (Time expired)
As always in the House of Representatives of the Australian parliament, I am pleased to speak on a government bill, to support it very strongly and to commend it to the parliament on behalf of the Ryan electorate, which I very proudly represent.
I support the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 because it is good policy and because it is in the national interest. The government should not be in the business of owning many assets, and amongst those are health insurance related companies and organisations. I know that the overwhelming majority of Ryan constituents believe that socialism is dead, but clearly the Australian Labor Party of 2006 still believes that socialism exists and that the federal government should own a whole range of assets. We do not believe in that approach. We think it is in the interests of the country and in the interests of the consumers that key assets are sold because then they will deliver better services and better prices to the people of Australia and the consumers.
I would like to take this opportunity to give the reasons why I think it is important for this health insurance asset that is under the government’s management at the moment to be sold. As I said, it is important that the people of Ryan, whom I represent, are aware of the reasons why it should be sold. An integral part of the Howard government’s commitment to health care is its promotion of private health insurance. The Howard government is very committed to assisting Australians with the cost of private health insurance and to ensuring that they are given the greatest choice in relation to their health care.
Australians might be interested to know that in 1996 fewer than 34 per cent of Australians had private health cover. Today, more than 10 million Australians, or 43 per cent of the population, are covered by private health insurance. This take-up in private health insurance is a very direct consequence of the Howard government’s initiatives to encourage the Australian people to take an interest in their own health care and to be supported by the Howard government in so doing.
In 1999 the Howard government introduced the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance premiums, worth almost $1,000 a year to the typical Australian family. That was overwhelmingly received by the Australian people and, notwithstanding that, overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian Labor Party. I am sure that the people of Ryan would also be interested to know that more than 55 per cent of all hospital procedures are now done in private hospitals. I know that many of my constituents will have taken advantage of the wonderful services and professionalism at the Wesley Hospital in Toowong, which is in my electorate.
The government has also recently announced some of the biggest changes to health insurance legislation since the early 1990s. Currently in the community consultation stages, these include continuing to make private health cover more affordable, improving customer access to information about health insurance products, streamlining regulation of the industry while maintaining the benefits of competition and, of course, strong governance and prudential oversight. These changes will continue to expand hospital cover to include outpatient and out-of-hospital services, as well as chronic care management for conditions such as diabetes and asthma.
Part of the Howard government’s commitment to private health insurance and the health sector in general is reflected in this piece of legislation, and the heart of it is the sale of Medibank Private. As I said, we do not believe in socialism in 2006. In the 21st century the days of socialism have long gone. Even communist countries such as China and the former Soviet Union, today Russia, are not interested in socialism. They are in the business of privatising many of their state owned enterprises and organisations. Yet here we have the Australian Labor Party and the alternative prime minister, Mr Beazley, seeking to put forward to the Australian people the retention of Medibank Private.
If you go back a little in time, the primary reason for the establishment of Medibank Private by the Fraser government, in October 1976, was the need to promote competition in the arena of private health insurance. Three decades later, Medibank Private is now the largest health insurer in our country. Over that time Medibank Private has been instrumental in transforming the private health insurance industry to be more competitive and more inclusive. There are now some 38 funds which offer private health insurance operating across Australia and, while there is no denying that a government owned Medibank Private has in previous years played an important role, the government certainly feels that it is time for this legislation to pass the parliament and time to give Australian people the opportunity to have a stake in what will be a very successful organisation. The Howard government believes that the health interests of the Australian people are not best served by the government being both a regulator and an owner in the private health insurance industry.
In selling Medibank Private, the government is ensuring the private health insurance market can become even more competitive, thereby helping to keep a lid on premium increases. Notwithstanding some of the rhetoric of the opposition, we do believe that in health, no less than in telecommunications, the market forces in operation will be the best mechanism for keeping premium increases to a minimum. Selling Medibank Private will essentially unshackle its operations, allowing it to apply full commercial practice and discipline to its operations to ensure that it is a dynamic and efficient organisation providing the best possible products and solutions for its members. The government should not be in the business of, effectively, running a health insurance company. This was aptly stated in the editorial of the Australian Financial Review on Friday, 28 April 2006:
It’s a good thing if Medibank Private is taken off the government’s hands; Labor’s opposition to the sale is mystifying. Canberra never had any business running an insurance company.
That very neatly sums up the position that this should not be in government’s hands, and the Labor Party’s position is mystifying indeed.
The Howard government recognises that medical research as well plays an important part in the health sector, and its policies and budget priorities have contributed strongly to ensuring that all kinds of wonderful medical research and scientific research can take place to assist Australians in the management of their health as well as to find cures for the terrible illnesses from which some of our fellow Australians suffer. I want to touch on that because one of Australia’s very distinguished scientists, Professor Ian Frazer, who is of course the Australian of the Year and is also a Ryan resident, is in the parliament today to support the Kids in the House program. This is run by a very important organisation in this country which promotes awareness of diabetes in Australia. In the parliament this morning I had the great pleasure of meeting many of those young Australians who suffer from diabetes, together with their parents, including Jesse Goss from my electorate and her dad, Peter Goss.
It is important that this government focus on policies that affect the economy in a very positive fashion and that affect, within the economy, the health sector. We know that our capacity to fund research is greater when the economy is prosperous and dynamic and, indeed, that is what the government are ensuring under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and their cabinet colleagues. Without a strong and prosperous economy there simply is not the capacity to fund much of the vital research that we so desperately want to fund and to find breakthroughs with.
Some $500 million from the sale of Medibank Private will be committed to the National Health and Medical Research Council over four years, and there will be some $170 million over nine years for new research fellowships. These fellowships will attract top researchers to Australia and keep them here. That is amongst the reasons why it is very important that this sale proceeds smoothly and efficiently when it does go to the market—because the funds that the government is able to generate from the sale will go to very important research, including, as I mentioned, half a billion dollars to the NHMRC.
The government has decided that the sale of Medibank Private will take place as a sharemarket float as opposed to a trade sale. Floating the company will give all Australians an opportunity to own part of Medibank Private and will also allow existing customers to be recognised through an entitlement in the public offer. Allowing Medibank Private to be listed on the stock exchange will enable Medibank to raise capital, expand and offer more services to its customers. The government decided against selling Medibank Private by trade sale because such a sale could be seen to be the mechanism by which Medibank Private’s competitors get involved and that is certainly not desirable. That would, of course, have had a great impact on reducing competition rather than promoting it.
As members will know, the government has decided that the most appropriate time for the sale is probably some time in 2008—we hope to be re-elected in 2007—when that transaction will be put to the Australian people via a sharemarket float. I have heard previous speakers from the opposition say that this is all very devious and mischievous and that, should a Labor government come into office next year, it would automatically knock that policy off the agenda—a Beazley government will not be selling Medibank Private. I say to the Australian people that members of the Labor Party have form on this. We all know that while they were in office they had no hesitation in selling some of Australia’s key government owned assets. High on the list were Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and the CSL, yet today they oppose the sale of Telstra and, with this bill, Medibank Private. Their form certainly suggests that philosophically they have no problem in selling government owned enterprises when it is politically convenient to them. Of course, in opposition all they will do is oppose a government initiative which is really in the national interest.
As I said earlier, socialism is dead and I know that the overwhelming majority of the Ryan electorate does not subscribe to the philosophy of socialism in the 21st century. The Australian economy exists in a very globalised world. We are very much a modern, dynamic economy and it is vital that we continue to pursue philosophies and policies that reflect that. We do not live in the past. As a nation beginning its journey into the future, there may have been a case for significant organisations, such as an airline or a bank, to be held in the hands of the Commonwealth, but that case cannot be made today. It is important that this bill succeeds in both of the houses of parliament and that in 2008 it is put to the Australian people for them to have the opportunity to take a financial stake in what will be a very successful company.
Quite often one comes across little gems in our vocation. I came across one in the form of a speech by the current Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Finance to the Life Insurance Federation of Australia at the Hyatt Hotel in Perth on 7 July 1994. I certainly commend that speech to my colleagues in the coalition and to those opposite as well. As finance minister—the Leader of the Opposition as he is today—he made a very compelling case for privatisation and outlined circumstances where the Commonwealth should rid itself of key assets. I will read it into Hansard because I know that the people of the electorate of Ryan, whom I represent here, will be very interested in this because it gives an insight into the Leader of the Opposition’s thinking and his approach to policy and government. If at the next election the Australian people decide to vote for the Labor Party, they ought to know what they might get. Of course, as the member for Ryan, I encourage them not to do that because that would be to the detriment of the national interest. I regret that time will not allow me to read all of his speech—it is quite compelling—but this is what the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, said as finance minister to the Life Insurance Federation of Australia in July 1994 at the Hyatt Hotel:
I want to start by putting the privatisation program into context, because as a relative newcomer as Finance Minister, it comes as a surprise to me that so little is known about the rationale that underlies asset sales, especially given that we have had an asset sales program for almost seven years now.
Possibly it is the media’s fascination with the dollars that are generated by asset sales that makes it appear that the budgetary bottom line is the Government’s first and last objective in pursuing privatisation.
But there are broader benefits to be gained from moving the ownership of assets into the private sector, most notably in achieving greater efficiency, stronger performance and improved competitiveness in some of our key national enterprises. But I will spell this out in further detail later.
He went on to give several very compelling reasons for the sale of assets. He talks about the Commonwealth Bank, the sale of Qantas and matters of timing and gives reasons, including competition and benefits for the national budget. It really is a very good speech and one could have been forgiven for thinking that it was made by a federal Liberal minister. I commend that speech to my colleagues.
It is interesting to note that in the 1994 quote he said that the asset sales program has been going on ‘for almost seven years now’. So since the Hawke Labor government came to office in 1983 they had been in the process of selling assets. Let us have none of this rhetoric from members of the opposition that they do not believe in privatisation. Today they stand vigorously opposed to the sale of Telstra and Medibank Private but, if they were in government, they would do the same. I think the double standard really brings them into complete political contempt.
I highlight that to anyone who might be listening to this speech, and, of course, to those in my Ryan electorate because they are very much interested in government policies and in the alternative policies of an alternative Prime Minister. I commend the transaction and the bill to the parliament.
I rise to speak on the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006. The government’s proposal to sell Medibank Private is no small matter. The impact of the sale will be felt across the entire Australian community, specifically by Medibank Private’s three million members. As Medibank Private represents 29 per cent of the market, there will no doubt be a ripple effect across the entire private health insurance market. Given Medibank Private’s pre-eminent market position, there are likely to be flow-on effects for the other 38 private health funds operating in the market. There is also a potential impact on Medicare, which I will comment on later.
The sale of Medibank Private provides not one extra health service for Australians. We should ask ourselves: what is the advantage of selling Medibank Private? Why has the government concluded that this is good public policy? There is no advantage and no gain to be made for the three million Medibank Private customers. The sale is proposed simply because the government is obsessed by its ideology of privatisation—at the expense of good public policy.
The opposition believes that Medibank Private plays an important role as the market leader in holding down premiums and in keeping the private health insurance market competitive and consumer oriented. That will change if this sale proceeds, as no doubt it will. We have already seen the recent profit growth of Medibank Private. This growth has in no small way been assisted by the government’s 30 per cent private healthcare rebate. In relation to the potential sale I would like to note the retained earnings—in other words, the profit figures—for Medibank Private since 1998-99. In that year there was a profit figure of $57.3 million; in 1999-2000, it was $99.4 million; in 2000-01, $105.9 million; in 2001-02, there was a $175.4 million loss; in 2002-03, the profit figure was $10.4 million; in 2003-04, $44.8 million; in 2004-05, $130.8 million; and in 2005-06, $200.1 million. So this year has seen a profit increase of 53 per cent, to just over $200 million. That is a remarkable turnaround in five years: from a loss of $175.4 million in 2001-02 to such a significant profit.
There is a school of thought that maybe premiums could have been reduced instead of increasing them over that same period of time. There is no doubt in my mind that this was part of the process of fattening up Medibank Private for sale, so that it now becomes an attractive figure for sale. From 1997 a range of government initiatives have been introduced which have effectively stemmed the decline in private health insurance, including the subsidisation of $3 billion in annual expenditure on the private health insurance rebate. It also includes the concept of Lifetime Health Cover, which allows health funds to charge different premiums, depending on the age of the person taking up the private health insurance. The support also includes the government’s campaign to promote the benefits of private health insurance.
This government has done all it could to ensure that private health funds, and Medibank Private in particular, have received support to ensure their profitability. Kenneth Davidson argued in an article in the Age on 24 April this year:
... the $2.5 billion 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance provides more budgetary assistance to the tiny private health insurance industry than to the rest of industry combined.
He argues that this is why ‘Australia has ended up with a less efficient, and less equitable, health sector’. The government in its endless pursuit of the budget surplus has cut funding not only for health but for education, the CSIRO, universities, research and development, and training and retraining. Instead the government doles out grants and one-off payments and special payments, like a mother doling out lollies to her children. Of course, that reward presupposes good behaviour, and these days that good behaviour is defined by signing agreements to conform to the government’s industrial relations policy. We have only to consider the higher education funding agreements to know that.
To return to the specific case in point, the sale of Medibank Private, the Special Minister of State in both introducing the bill and promoting the sale has promoted a competition argument. In the second reading speech the minister stated:
Competition between funds is the best way of keeping a lid on premiums.
The minister believes the sale will improve competition in the health insurance industry. I am unable to find any evidence to date that proves that argument, if for no other reason than that, as yet, we have no information on a potential buyer or buyers or on how the sale will actually play out. Logically, the detail of the sale will dictate the impact on the competition within the industry. For instance, if all or part of the business is purchased by an existing health insurance company, a current competitor, there will be one fewer competitor in the market. Then, of course, the government will wring its hands and cry, ‘Market forces not policies have created this.’
The proposed sale does not assist families struggling to pay private health insurance premiums to supplement healthcare services provided by Medicare, another policy area that is suffering government neglect. There have also been claims that premiums will not increase with the sale. Naturally that is yet to be seen, but I doubt that it will be the case. Logic dictates otherwise. The last time the government made such a promise about premiums they went up by almost 40 per cent. Industry analysts have predicted that premiums will go up. In the first instance, the purchaser will need to recoup its purchase price. The reality is that Medibank Private will cease to be a not-for-profit company. There will be shareholders; shareholders demand returns; returns come from profit; profit comes from increasing costs or lowering service levels.
Medibank Private has been in the black recently. With the expenses associated with and the actual cost of the sale it will probably take some years to build up profits to a level acceptable to the owner and/or new shareholders. There is also the possibility that if premiums do not increase then benefits may well be reduced. Given the market share that Medibank Private will bring with it—currently 29 per cent—and the likelihood that the purchaser will be an existing health insurance company, the new version of Medibank Private will be a massive company. In all likelihood it will remain the industry leader. As industry leader there is a very strong possibility—it is almost a certainty—that the other funds will follow suit such that premiums increase and benefits decrease across all funds.
It is typical of this government that it acts in a politically expedient manner without thinking through the consequences—or, if it does, ignoring them. On the subject of political expediency, who gets the profits from the sale? This is not as straightforward as it might seem. Terry McCrann, in an article in the Mercury on 10 October 2006, suggests that there are two components to the value of Medicare:
The first is the franchise, the name and its customer base ... The Government may be entitled to sell them and pocket the proceeds. The second component is the profit and multiple of that profit ... There is at least an argument that profit and the sale multiple are owned by the members who have seemingly overpaid for their health insurance.
I note that the minister indicated that the sale money would be used for health and medical research. The shadow minister, the member for Lalor, in a statement on 17 October indicated that this money had already been budgeted for by the government.
I would like to move on to consider the social implications for this latest piece of government budgeting. I have never been a fan of privatisation. When in government, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the ALP chose to privatise the Commonwealth Bank but I, along with many others, voted against it in the caucus. There is no doubt that the ALP have learned from that experience, which is why we so vehemently argue against privatisation. We only have to consider the example of Telstra to understand that private is not necessarily better.
This government is obsessed with being debt free—but at what cost? Expenditure has been lowered with a consequent lowering of standards in education and health. This has benefited the coalition’s constituency—to the advantage of the wealthy and to the detriment of the less wealthy. The case for a debt-free government has not been made. If I have a house worth $350,000 and have paid $100,000 on the loan I took out to buy it, then I sell it, I am actually better off, cash in hand—or debt free—but I have nowhere to live so I must pay rent. Kenneth Davidson stated in the Age article I have previously quoted:
The reduction in public debt has been financed by increasing the tax burden and the sale of public assets.
It is those people struggling to survive who bear the burden of high taxation. These are the people who will be most affected by the sale of Medibank Private. Petrol prices continue at an all-time high, and interest rates and commodity prices increase. For most families, private health insurance is an item on the family budget that may well be regarded as expendable. It is an item that can actually be cut, while interest rates and purchase of commodities cannot be cut.
In any scenario that the government cares to paint, there can be no guarantee that premiums will not increase and health benefits will not reduce. There will no doubt be a flow-on effect to Medicare as people previously covered by Medibank Private potentially leave private health coverage, if there is an impact on premiums. The likelihood is that Medicare will be strained and all the mechanisms this government has introduced to prop up health insurance will be as nothing. The Parliamentary Library’s research brief concludes that:
There is little evidence to support assertions that a privatised Medibank Private would be more efficient, competitive and less expensive for consumers. Similarly there is little evidence that a privatised Medibank Private would be less competitive or less able to contain costs.
I concur. This conclusion supports what we already know about the government’s management of the private health insurance industry. The government cannot be trusted to deliver any benefits from the sale—estimated at around $2 billion—to the three million customers who have paid high premiums to establish the equity in Medibank Private.
If this government were genuine about reducing premiums there would be a transparent debate about capping premiums. Instead, private health fund members face rising premiums and increased out-of-pocket costs for treatment at private hospitals. I add to this the fact that there is not one extra hospital or medical service provided out of all of this.
I take little comfort from the assurances provided by Senator Minchin, and I am sure that I speak on behalf of the 67,983 people in my electorate of Banks who are covered by private health insurance. I can only judge the government on its previous performance in this area. That record shows an average increase of eight per cent a year in the cost of private health insurance, with no corresponding increase in benefits. This bill does nothing to improve the health outcomes of Australians and it will likely place more stress on the increasingly overburdened family budget. It is right for the ALP to oppose the bill.
I am pleased to rise in support of the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006. In speaking to the bill I am mindful of the contribution made by the member for Banks, for whom I have much regard and respect. Notwithstanding that, he seems to be making erroneous assertions concerning the impact of a privatised Medibank Private. I must say that in broad terms this is an issue that has attracted some focus in the community. Certainly on the Gold Coast in my electorate of Moncrieff, the concern in the community has been heightened by the impact on health services broadly, and I guess in a tangential fashion, of the privatisation of Medibank Private. It is right that people should be concerned. As a member of the government, I have been appalled at the shocking way in which the Queensland Labor government has run the public hospital system. It is for that very reason that I am such a key supporter of this government’s philosophical belief and adherence to the policy that says, ‘We want as many Australians as possible to be in private medical insurance.’
This philosophical belief is related directly to the bill that is before the House today. In broad terms, we know that what is occurring in Australia is the maladministration of our public hospital systems around the country, but the problem is most evident in Queensland. It was with great interest that I read in the newspapers on the Gold Coast over the past fortnight that the Gold Coast Hospital has been put on emergency bypass on three or four occasions. In the past fortnight, a city of some 500,000-plus people has been forced to endure its local hospital being put on emergency bypass because the Queensland state Labor government is unable to appropriately manage and run public hospitals in this country.
Despite this fact, it is the position of the opposition and the Australian Labor Party to be opposed philosophically to the principle of private health insurance. I will speak about my own particular electorate of Moncrieff, which has approximately 55 per cent of its population holding private health insurance, despite the fact that the Australian Labor Party does not really believe that private health insurance is the way to go. We hear claims from the member for Banks and a whole host of previous speakers from the opposition who have said that the public should be greatly concerned about the impact of a privatised Medibank Private. The Labor Party says that it is all about ideology. The Labor Party says that the consequence of a privatised Medibank Private will be that premiums will increase. The fact is, though, that not only is the Labor Party engaging in significant acts of hypocrisy with respect to privatisations on this issue but it is also engaging in a very negative scare campaign over what a privatised Medibank Private means for the Australian people. What we know and what we as the government believe is that vibrant competition in the marketplace is one of the very best outcomes that can be achieved. We believe that competition promotes efficiency, drives down costs and provides benefits to consumers. These are the benefits that flow from a competitive marketplace and from privatisation.
We know that there are about 38 private health funds operating in the sector. Medibank Private is certainly one of the largest and a privatised Medibank Private will provide opportunities to further increase the competitive tempo in the Australian private health insurance market. Increasing that competitive tempo will have benefits for the Australian people that will include downward pressure on premiums, not upward pressure. We have seen that in a number of instances. This is where the Labor Party’s hypocrisy is stark because the Labor Party was the party that privatised Qantas; the Labor Party was the party that privatised the Commonwealth Bank. Despite the rhetoric that we hear from those in the Australian Labor Party who are contributing to this debate, we know that the Australian Labor Party is happy to support privatisation when it can waste the funds, as it did with Qantas, as it did with the Commonwealth Bank, not to repay debt—as this government has done over the past several years for some $96 billion of Kim Beazley’s budget black hole that he left us—but simply to use the money in a recurrent way.
This government has made sure that the Australian people are the beneficiaries of privatisations. The various privatisations that this government has engaged in have seen the full repayment of the $96 billion budget black hole that the Australian Labor Party left the Australian people, so that now this government is able to allocate an additional $4 billion or $5 billion each year into funds that help to provide for, for example, education and universities, that help to pay for roads and for the defence of our nation. These are the kinds of correct and wise allocations of taxpayers’ money that this government is now able to contribute to as a result of saving some $4 billion or $5 billion. That is money that the Australian Labor Party was previously paying as interest.
In addition to that there are a couple of safeguards that are worth mentioning with regard to the privatisation of Medibank Private. The first is that the government retains the approval process with respect to any proposed premium increases. So the member for Banks and other members of the Australian Labor Party can claim that the consequence of a privatised Medibank Private will be upward pressure on premiums, but the fact is that the government will keep in place the current safeguards that exist with respect to making sure that any premium increase that is sought is one that can be justified. So claims that premium increases will be unjustified, will be excessive or will put undue pressure and burden on those who are in a private health insurance fund are simply wrong because the government will retain its strong safeguard with respect to premium increases.
In addition to that, the benefits that will flow to the Australian people from a privatised Medibank were announced earlier this year in this government’s budget when we announced that proceeds from the sale of Medibank Private will see the injection of some $500 million into medical research grants through the National Health and Medical Research Council and provide $170 million for the establishment of a research fellowship scheme. All of these benefits will have immediate and direct positive impacts on the Australian people. Quite simply it comes down to the fact that this government does not see the value in using taxpayers’ funds to run a health insurance business. It certainly seems to me to make a lot more sense to use those funds to benefit the Australian people through, for example, the investment of money into the National Health and Medical Research Council and for medical research.
So Labor’s scare campaign is certainly unfounded. I would like to see from the Australian Labor Party a contribution to this debate that actually details what the Labor Party will do with respect to private health insurance. I would like to hear from the Australian Labor Party not a scare campaign on the sale of Medibank Private but a policy proposal that highlights the way in which the Labor Party will support Australians becoming members of private health insurance funds. That is what the Australian people would like to hear from the Labor Party. I know that the 55 per cent of my electorate who have private medical insurance want to know what the Australian Labor Party’s policy is with respect to making sure that premiums will not increase or that private medical insurance will not be nationalised.
We know that this government has in place the 30 per cent rebate, something that the Labor Party begrudgingly only came to the party on very recently. We know that the Labor Party philosophically is very weak when it comes to supporting that 30 per cent rebate—the rebate that makes health insurance so affordable for so many Australians. In addition to that, I would also say to the Australian Labor Party: why doesn’t it put some pressure on its state Labor cousins? We know that the state Labor governments across Australia are maladministering their state public hospitals, the consequence of which is that there is increased pressure for those Australians who want to use health facilities. What private health insurance does is to make sure that those Australians—
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask whether the Prime Minister heard comments this morning by Tony Blair’s special envoy on climate, Mr Elliot Morley, stating that the UK was surprised and disappointed that:
... Australia didn’t ratify Kyoto and hasn’t joined in the kind of international consensus which is emerging on climate change, and the kind of international action that we need.
He also, said regarding Australia’s position outside the Kyoto framework, that:
... if we all take that attitude—
that is yours, Prime Minister—
then there’ll be no progress at all, and we will just sleepwalk to oblivion ...
Prime Minister, hasn’t your climate change scepticism held back global action to avoid dangerous climate change?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. I did hear those remarks.
Mr Albanese interjecting
Whether Elliot Morley is a good man or a bad man, he is not speaking for his Prime Minister on this issue. I rather thought the Leader of the Opposition would ask this question. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the House that the views that Elliot Morley expressed do not represent the views that have been expressed to me by the British Prime Minister and they do not represent the views—
Mr Beazley interjecting
Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.
that were expressed publicly on, as I recall, 26 March this year when Mr Blair and I held a joint news conference. As best I can recall his remarks—and when I get hold of his precise remarks I will have them put into HansardMr Blair said that, unless we get an agreement that includes countries like China, India and the United States, we are not going to have an effective international emissions-trading system. Indeed, my recollection of that encounter when Mr Blair came to Australia was that the observation on climate change that most fascinated him was that made in the meeting between ministers and the British Prime Minister in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in our government made the observation that, if we were to close down all of our power stations tonight, it would take China only nine months of emissions in order to equal that contribution. I reject completely that that man was speaking for his Prime Minister on AM. I thought his remarks were somewhat patronising and certainly not representative of the views of his Prime Minister.
My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. What is the reaction of the government to the prospect of another coup in Fiji?
I thank the member for Fadden for that question. Needless to say—and I imagine that I speak for both sides of the House on this issue—the government would view with very deep concern both the possibility and certainly the actuality of a military coup in Fiji. We are concerned about threats that have been made against the constitutionally elected government by Commodore Frank Bainimarama over the past few days, including last week at the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Suva and, most recently, last night. I conveyed to the Fijian Prime Minister the strong support of the government. I would remind the House that the government in Fiji was returned to office in free and fair elections in May. It has a multiparty cabinet, representing the views of the majority of the Fijian community regardless of race. Any illegal or unconstitutional action against the Fijian government by the military would severely damage not only the international reputation of Fiji but also its economy, especially its booming tourism sector.
I told the Prime Minister last night that Australia strongly supported the duly and democratically elected government of Fiji. Separately, it has been made clear on behalf of Australia directly to Commodore Bainimarama on a number of occasions—and most recently in the last 24 hours—that the proper role of the military in a democracy is to respect and support the properly elected government. Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston spoke yesterday to the Commodore and reiterated those views. We in the government would view any extraconstitutional moves in Fiji with the utmost seriousness. We are taking steps to be prepared to respond appropriately to possible developments.
I spoke last night to the New Zealand Prime Minister, who shares the views that I am now expressing to the Australian parliament, and yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke to Mr Greg Irwin, the Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum, about possible regional responses. There are contingency plans in place to respond to any consular emergency. Naval vessels are being prepared to help with the evacuation of Australians if that should prove necessary and current travel advice recommends that Australians exercise caution. I do ask Australians intending to visit Fiji to monitor the advisory very closely. The situation is uncertain and could deteriorate quite rapidly without warning.
On indulgence, I agree with what the Prime Minister has had to say. I made that clear at a press conference which I held about half an hour ago, although not in the detail that the Prime Minister has just mentioned in his response. But it is the correct response to the circumstances which now appear to confront us. My question is about another matter, however, and it is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that, when the 165 countries which have ratified the Kyoto protocol meet in Nairobi this month to further the practical implementation of Kyoto between 2008 and 2012, Australia and the United States will not have a vote?
There will be two meetings in Nairobi. The meeting about the future, about the new Kyoto, will in fact by chaired by Australians.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am afraid that I found it almost impossible to hear the Prime Minister because of the constant caterwauling of members opposite. Mr Speaker, I know you have a difficult job but I do believe it is important to discipline people who constantly breach the standing orders in this way.
The Leader of the House raises a valid point of order. I must admit, I had great difficulty in hearing the Prime Minister too. When the Prime Minister has the call, he will be heard.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of developments overnight in the North Korean nuclear issue?
Firstly, I thank the member for Indi. I particularly appreciate her interest in this issue. On the one hand, the government welcomes the statement that North Korea will return to the six-party talks on an unconditional basis. We have consistently maintained that the solution to the North Korean crisis is going to be a solution best brought forward through the six-party process. These talks are the best way for North Korea to get the security assurance it claims it needs for it to normalise its full relationship with the international community and to begin the task of fixing its badly broken economy.
Of course, it is not going to be sufficient for North Korea simply to return to talks. What we look for is action and solutions, and the North Koreans must move quickly to implement their commitments, which were agreed by all six parties in 2005 in the joint statement of principles. That statement of principles was an agreement to abandon North Korea’s nuclear weapons and nuclear programs and for North Korea to return to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and be covered by International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It is important to emphasise that the agreement to resume the six-party talks—and I understand the talks are going to take place before the end of the year—does not mean that the international community, including Australia, recognises North Korea’s so-called, self-declared, nuclear status.
I also take the opportunity to congratulate China and the United States of America for their efforts to achieve a resumption of the six-party talks. We have consistently and actively supported a strongly coordinated international response to the North Korean crisis. I think the fact that there was such a strong and coordinated response, manifesting itself in two Security Council resolutions, 1695 and 1718, has been instrumental in at least getting the six-party talks process going again. But it is very important to emphasise that talks are not enough. These talks have to lead to results, and the results have to include the denuclearisation of North Korea and North Korea being subjected to international safeguards and the full regime of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the report by the National Farmers Federation which concluded that a domestic emissions-trading scheme could provide farmers with an income of $700 million to $900 million over five years through payments for carbon stored in forests? Prime Minister, isn’t it a fact that reductions in land clearing could be providing farmers with an income stream of $1.8 billion from carbon credits through the Kyoto protocol over five years? Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that the government’s opposition to the Kyoto protocol and the failure to introduce a national emissions-trading scheme has penalised farmers to the tune of $2.5 billion over five years?
The answer to all three questions is no.
He’s supposed to give you your briefing notes before question time.
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!
Mr Snowdon interjecting
Order! The member for Lingiari is warned!
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline the most recent information on the Australian national accounts? What does this indicate about the Australian economy?
I thank the honourable member for Braddon and congratulate him on being the best member for Braddon for a very long period of time. Long may he continue in that role. Today the ABS released the annual national accounts, which take into account revisions showing that GDP grew 2.8 per cent in 2005-06. It also, in its annual publication, revised productivity, showing that labour productivity, which is output per hour worked in the market sector, grew 2.2 per cent in 2005-06. This was revised up from 1.9 per cent and in fact at 2.2 per cent it is in line with the average that we have had over the last five-year cycle to 2003-04 when labour productivity in the market sector grew 2.1 per cent.
So the good news is that labour productivity was revised upwards. It shows that it is in line with, or marginally in front of, the last productivity cycle. But we have to keep productivity growing in Australia if we want to make sure that the Australian economy continues the longest growth period in Australian history. We are now in the longest period of economic growth ever recorded in Australia history.
Absolutely essential to that is industrial relations reform. There could be no more important reform to boost labour productivity than an improvement in labour relations. It stands to reason that, if you can improve the system in which people work, you are going to get more productivity out of the labour market. That is why the OECD said this in its most recent survey on Australia:
The increasing scope for direct negotiations between employers and employees has probably also helped to raise productivity as enterprise bargaining allows firms to adopt productivity enhancing practices and promotes a more cooperative work environment.
The OECD said it. I noticed that there was a very, very long, wordy but intellectually light report put out by the glimmer twins last week—the member for Perth and the member for Lilley.
So Work Choices is retrospectively—
The member for Melbourne is warned.
I like the Left intervening in defence of the Right. The whole emphasis of that report was that the OECD was wrong; that what you actually need in a modern economy is centralised wage fixation. Nothing could destroy labour productivity more in this country than the abolition of AWAs—a federal Labor policy—and nothing could do more damage than to take wage settlements from prosperous areas of the economy and apply them across awards to areas where there is no capacity. Nothing could take us back to the dark, dark ages of the failed Keating-Beazley Labor government faster than turning on industrial relations reform. Labor is the party of backward economic policy and nothing threatens productivity more than a Labor re-election.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that CSIRO has confirmed to Senate estimates this morning that it has cut its renewables research by five per cent in the last year? Is the Prime Minister aware that CSIRO is shutting down altogether its project on splitting water to create hydrogen fuel—a $1 million setback to renewable energy research? Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Commonwealth’s own scientific research body spent zero dollars on wind research and only $4½ million on solar last year?
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to pages 539 and 540 of House of Representatives Practice, which explain the intent of questions to obtain factual information. They say that speeches may not become lengthy or—
The member for Mackellar raises a valid point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to her question.
Isn’t the Prime Minister’s announcement today all about trying to provide political cover for failing to commit to the serious emission reduction targets at the core of the Stern report?
I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question, but I would suggest she not mislead the House by saying that CSIRO has reduced its investment in renewable energy technologies. That is just not correct.
Then why did they say that?
They didn’t. CSIRO reviews its research portfolio annually. Research projects sometimes cease; the investment is redirected into another area of similar research. So the million dollars that the member for Jagajaga is referring to, relating to the investigation of water-splitting technology, has been redirected into another renewable energy research project. So it is exactly the same amount of money in another renewable energy research project.
This attack on CSIRO is quite out of bounds. CSIRO is our premier scientific organisation. It rates in the top one per cent of scientific organisations around the world in 13 out of 22 areas of scientific research. In fact—the member for Jagajaga refers to the investment in solar thermal technologies—it was announced today that CSIRO has been awarded an additional almost $3 million in the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate to be applied to solar thermal technologies. CSIRO is leading the world in a range of technologies, not only on variable energy but renewable energies, and has the government’s complete support.
My question follows the answer from the Minister for Education, Science and Training. It is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Is the minister aware of new project funding announced today that will help boost clean development and combat climate change?
Ms Plibersek interjecting
The member for Sydney!
Thank you to the member for Deakin for the question. He has very strong credentials in the area of the environment and supports the government’s ongoing role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This government is taking a leading role in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, not just here but across our region. In the last week we have seen the government invest some $250 million in groundbreaking projects under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, and this morning we saw another key plank in our climate change strategy, with the Prime Minister announcing a further $60 million for 42 clean energy projects as part of Australia’s commitment to the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. This funding will help develop a suite of practical emission-reducing measures amongst partnership countries—technologies ranging from renewable energy to energy efficiency right through to clean coal.
While the rest of the world talks about what should be done, in just nine months six nations representing 50 per cent of the world’s economy, 50 per cent of the world’s people and 50 per cent of the world’s emissions have put in place the practical foundation for the solution to greenhouse gas emissions. Left behind, waiting for a clue, waiting for an idea, is the Labor Party, still clinging to old Kyoto, still wanting to impose unwanted and unfair costs on the economy, still wanting to send our industries—
Come on, laugh at your own jokes again!
Order! The member for Bruce!
and our jobs overseas.
Laugh at your own jokes!
The member for Bruce is warned!
The debate has moved on, but Labor is stuck in the past with a scheme designed in Europe in the last century. This government, the Howard government, continues to support Australia’s world-leading innovation, which can and will deliver real solutions to the greenhouse gas challenge and see them deployed right across the world. This government will continue to back innovative, practical measures on climate change, because taxes and targets do not deliver; technology does.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall saying on 19 March 2003 at the National Press Club in relation to Iraq and Australia’s approach to being a part of the coalition of the willing:
I don’t believe sitting on the sidelines is either good for Australia nor do I believe it has ever really been the Australian way.
Prime Minister, using your Kyoto logic, shouldn’t Australia have waited until every other country invaded Iraq before we sent in troops? Prime Minister, why isn’t Australia one of the 165 countries who have ratified Kyoto, who make up the coalition of the willing against dangerous climate change?
I think Laurie Oakes is right: the member for Kingsford Smith ought to take his place. But the answer obviously is that the analogy drawn by the member is absurd.
Mr Albanese interjecting
Order! The member for Grayndler has asked his question.
Let me, while I am on my feet—because this question is obviously about climate change, so the answer I am going to give is relevant—
Mr Albanese interjecting
The member for Grayndler is warned!
Let me quote the words of the leader of one of the other partners in the coalition of the willing in Iraq, a very successful, noble and courageous Labour leader, Tony Blair. I invite everybody who has followed this debate, and particularly the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of question time, to let me read what Tony Blair had to say—and I was wrong when I said it was 26 March. It was 28 March this year, and I apologise for misleading the House. This is what Tony Blair had to say in answer to a question at our joint press—
Ms Gillard interjecting
Yes, it is about Kyoto too—and not Kyoto 2, the new Kyoto; Kyoto as well. This is what he had to say:
That is why it is just, as I say, a completely unrealistic debate to say that you could have a climate change agreement that doesn’t involve China and then America obviously, and of course India which is also a country of over a billion people growing at a vast rate. Now we’re not at the stage yet—
Ms Plibersek interjecting
The member for Sydney is warned!
He continued:
that is Tony Blair’s way of saying we have not reached a new Kyoto—
but I think it is possible to build out of the initiatives that are happening today a more realistic framework that gives us a real chance of being able to reduce emissions, which is what we need to do, and protect the climate.
The reality is that the coalition of the willing in Iraq was contributed to by Mr Blair.
Mr Hatton interjecting
The member for Blaxland is warned!
Mr Blair knows, I know and other leaders in the AP6 know that the way of the future is to have an agreement that includes all of the world’s major emitters. If we were to follow the advice and sign Australia up to an arrangement that imposed a carbon price on the valuable resource industries of this country that did not impose the same price on our competitors, we would, in the words of the member for Batman, who cares about the workers of Australia, do enormous damage not only to the resource industries of Australia but to the workers of Australia. If you want progress on climate change, you have got to involve everybody. If you want to destroy one of the most valuable sectors of the Australian economy, hobble the resource industry with a carbon price that is not being borne by our competitors—and that in reality is the policy of the Australian Labor Party.
My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is helping rural and regional communities during this drought? What is the government’s response to claims that signing Kyoto alone is a quick fix to the problems of drought in Australia?
Mr Crean interjecting
The member for Hotham is warned!
I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. I recognise that many parts of his electorate in Queensland are drought declared, and they are part of the many regions in which we have declared exceptional circumstances across Australia. I know that many of his constituents appreciate the assistance that the government is giving to farming families in those areas. In only the last two weeks we have announced 62 areas as being in drought exceptional circumstances, and we have increased the assistance we are giving to farming families in those areas. More than 50 per cent of Australia’s agricultural land is now drought declared under exceptional circumstances, which is quite significant. Of course, we have announced extra counselling and emergency grants to be administered by the CWA. Obviously, we are talking to communities such as those communities in the member for Maranoa’s electorate about any other measures that may need to be taken, if warranted, to assist people in those areas. We are not giving them false hope but we are trying in practical ways to help them through this very challenging time.
We all need to remember that, at some stage, it will rain again, and we need to give people hope that that will take place. What we do not need to do is provide false hope that there is a quick fix. We need to recognise that this hot and dry drought is not the longest and not without precedence. The eight-year drought during World War II went for a longer period of time than this drought and, of course, history has recorded that the Federation drought, from the 1890s to 1902, went for longer than the existing drought that we are succumbing to at the moment.
We do need to give people hope. They need to know that we as a nation are going to stand beside them and support them. But we cannot give them the false hope of a quick fix—and that is what the Leader of the Opposition has been doing. He has been creating the illusion that signing Kyoto is going to help out with this dry spell and the hot conditions at the moment. People need to understand that ratifying Kyoto will not stop the El Nino effect. Scientific evidence is in that this drought has been partly caused by an El Nino effect. The El Nino effect on our climatic patterns has been around for a long, long time. In fact, it has been around since before the Industrial Revolution. We did not even have the steam engine when this was happening in our climatic circumstances. Ratifying Kyoto will not stop El Nino, ratifying Kyoto will not change the fact that El Nino has been with us for centuries, and ratifying Kyoto will not prevent future climate change.
The Labor Party has been wont to refer to and quote from the Stern report on climate change coming out of the United Kingdom. But another report has come out of the United Kingdom—a report by an all-party House of Lords committee which included a former Bank of England Governor. Commenting on the compliance mechanisms in the Kyoto protocol, the report said ‘they were very weak and even counter-productive’. They went on to say that the targets that were set were going to make little difference to rates of warming. The Blair government has done nothing to refute those assertions in that report coming out of the House of Lords committee.
The government is responding to and assisting with the drought in Australia in a very practical way. We are providing moral and financial assistance to the farmers of Australia and we are responding to climate change in a very practical way.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Is the minister aware of allegations aired on last Wednesday’s SBS Dateline program that it was highly likely that Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army recently fired at least five rocket-propelled grenades at Australian troops on patrol in southern Iraq? Given that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki relies on al-Sadr supporters as a primary political power base, has the Australian government made a formal complaint to Prime Minister al-Maliki regarding his government’s failure to rein in the Mehdi Army, which has threatened the lives of Australian troops?
I thank the member for Barton for his question. Yes, I am aware of those allegations. The Australian Defence Force currently has 1,400 troops deployed across the Iraq theatre. We are currently working with 150,000 American troops, with British troops and with the 300,000 people in the Iraqi security forces. Prime Minister al-Maliki, democratically elected by 12 million brave Iraqis, is trying to deal with a very difficult and complex environment in Iraq. Part of that complexity is the religious tension between the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds. It also involves terrorist elements that are seeking to foment violence within the country. Moqtada al-Sadr, of course, is one of the key players within Iraq. We also have fomenting of violence to some extent from some of the neighbouring countries. I can tell the member for Barton that one of the things that this government is very committed to is seeing that we will remain in Iraq. When I was in Baghdad, Prime Minister al-Maliki said, ‘You, Australia, were with us from the start,’ and I said to him, ‘And we will be there supporting you, your government and your troops to support a democracy—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I go to relevance: the question was quite explicit. It asked whether or not the minister had intervened with Iraq’s government to seek their support against attacks on Australian soldiers.
I am listening carefully to the Minister for Defence, and I believe his answer is relevant to the question.
Australia is committed to seeing that we will remain in Iraq to support the Iraqi government, the Iraqi security forces and our coalition partners until Iraq is in a position to cater for its own security. It is also important that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party appreciate—
Mrs Irwin interjecting
Order! The member for Fowler is warned!
that what our troops are doing in Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar, based in Tallil, amongst many, many other things, includes constant day-to-day, week-to-week contact with—
Mr Price interjecting
Order! The Chief Opposition Whip is warned!
the provincial governors in those two provinces, constant contact with tribal leaders, negotiation of security arrangements and training of Iraqi security forces. It also means in part that we provide security assistance to the Iraqis when they need it. The one thing we will not do is what the Leader of the Opposition has said. The Leader of the Opposition has said that, on day one—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question raised the issue of Moqtada al-Sadr’s activities against our troops. He is part of the coalition. What have you done?
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The question raised a number of issues, including rocket attacks and Australian troops, and the minister is in order. Has the minister completed his answer?
One thing this government will not do, which we have communicated to the Iraqi government, the democratically elected government, is that we will not prematurely leave Iraq—
Ms Bird interjecting
Order! The member for Cunningham is warned!
demand that our allies and our coalition partners do our heavy lifting for us—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The minister will resume his seat.
Ms Vamvakinou interjecting
The member for Calwell will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Calwell then left the chamber.
Ms Bird interjecting
And the member for Cunningham will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Cunningham then left the chamber.
Honourable members interjecting—
When the Speaker is on his feet members will remain silent.
Yes—show a bit of respect for the members!
The member for Cowan will remove himself under standing order 94(a) too.
The member for Cowan then left the chamber.
If the government were to take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, we would not be in a position to deal directly with Prime Minister al-Malaki about reining in Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mehdi Army.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order: he did not answer the question he was asked.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Workforce Participation. Would the minister advise the House how Work for the Dole is helping communities in drought affected areas, including in my electorate of Gwydir?
I thank the member for Gwydir for his question. Of course, he knows only too well the impacts—the financial, social and psychological impacts—of drought on so much of rural and regional Australia at the moment. When we were first elected in 1996, it was very evident that not much had been done for the unemployed. It was a case of shifting around the deck chairs. Mickey mouse courses tended to be the way it went—anything so Labor could disguise the real unemployment figures. So one of the first things we did in 1997 was to introduce Work for the Dole. It has been hugely successful, with over half a million people in the last 10 years helped to a new life.
Building on the experience of Work for the Dole, we looked at how that program might be tweaked and a further program evolved which would in particular address the problems in rural and regional drought affected areas, where there was a loss of rural workers. This is fairly self-evident to people in the country. When you have drought impacting on your farm, there is an enormous extra workload: there are livestock that have to be kept fed, there is water carting, feeding—a whole range of work that needs all hands to the mill. But, sadly, incomes also plummet, so many of our farms have had to let their rural workers go. Not only do you lose the labour on the farms that is essential but your own local communities can be downsized to the point where your schools, fire brigades, service clubs, sports clubs—the very fabric of your local community—are downsized and therefore threatened; they may become nonviable.
So we introduced Drought Force. Drought Force is all about those who have lost their jobs in an EC declared area being able to volunteer to work on farms. It is interesting that no-one opposite is really interested in this, because they do not represent rural and regional Australia. But perhaps they might like to tune in, because it does impact on the rest of the country as well.
If you volunteer to Drought Force because you have lost your job in an EC declared area, you can work on a farm property for 2½ days a week. Indeed, in most cases we see people volunteering to work full time. In return, you are paid Newstart allowance. So the farmer has your labour, but of course he cannot afford to pay. In addition to the Newstart allowance and some $20.80 extra a fortnight, the worker also receives a $1,600 training credit paid in two instalments. Right now, as we speak, there are people on Drought Force throughout drought affected Australia carting water, feeding stock, milking cows, fixing fences and cleaning out dams, but their very existence in that small local community is part of the fabric of that local life. Drought Force is one of the key ways that our government will ensure that our farm communities survive not only financially but also socially and psychologically.
I ask that those opposite call on their state colleagues in state governments—particularly Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—and ask them to also take this drought seriously. I am ashamed to be a Victorian, where our Victorian government has its hands in the pockets of farmers, charging them for water they are not delivering. It is a disgrace. The same is happening in New South Wales. This government, the John Howard government, is helping drought affected communities to survive. I call on the states to do likewise.
I have a question without notice for the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I refer the minister to Senate estimates of 30 October. Is the minister aware that the immigration department admitted that their monitoring of section 457 employers was simply to send questionnaires? Is the minister aware that in the last financial year the department visited only 18 per cent of the section 457 sites, down from 25 per cent the previous year, despite an increase in sponsors of 20 per cent? Is the minister aware that, with such inspections, the department admitted giving advance notice and, as a result, sponsors had time to cover up unlawful practices, such as workers doing unskilled work, and that rorts such as deducting exorbitant rents are being dismissed as a responsibility of the state government or the Office of Workplace Services, neither agency holding enforcement powers? Finally, could the minister agree to the necessity for reform in the light of a statement made by the manager—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Kennedy has the call, and he will come to the conclusion of his question.
of AMH’s corporate affairs, John Berry, and I quote the Queensland Times of 27 October—
The member for Kennedy will come to his question.
Mr Speaker, I have to quote this for the minister to comment upon it.
The member for Kennedy does not have to quote.
It says:
This dumbing down of wages ...
I am quoting the AMH manager—
... has occurred through companies exploiting ... section 457 ...
The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. I call the Attorney-General.
I am aware of the importance of the 457 visa class—
Mr Speaker—
Order! The Attorney-General will resume his seat. The member for Kennedy was asked to conclude his question. He continued to quote excessively. His question stands, and I have called the Attorney-General.
Mr Speaker, I need to quote the person. The question has no relevance without the quotation.
The member for Kennedy is well aware that excessively long questions are out of order. I have called the Attorney-General to respond to the question.
I was making the observation about the importance of the 457 visa class, because the Australian economy is performing very well. As I think the member should know, we have unemployment at record lows; we have high demand for skilled workers; and we have employers looking for ways to grow their businesses and employ more people which, in turn, will create wealth and jobs for Australians. And the 457 visa class, of course, is the key to meeting that demand at this time.
The Prime Minister made the observation not so long ago—and I agree with it—that it was clear that the objective evidence is that wages are not being driven down. In fact, there was a two per cent increase in wages in the last quarter. Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, released a report on the temporary skilled migration program recently, and I would suggest that the honourable member may care to read it because it found that 93 per cent of those on visas surveyed were in managerial, professional, associate professional, trade or skilled occupations. In other words, they were highly skilled in the positions in which they were working; they were having average salaries of $65,000 per annum; they had to be paid a minimum salary level, and that was $41,850 in metropolitan Australia. This is not an indication that wages are being driven down. The overwhelming majority of temporary workers feel that they are being treated the same as others.
I have observed the suggestion that because the 457 visa class is being used more frequently the percentage of visits is down, and in fact in percentage terms they may be, but in absolute numbers visits are well up, with DIMA having monitored over 6,471 sponsors in 2005-06, having side visits of 1,790 of out of 10,000 sponsors, and they are dedicating more resources, of course, to deal with more allegations that are being made from time to time. The minister has also responded with a $23.5 million package over four years to establish further strike teams to deal with these issues to ensure that employers of temporary workers are complying with the conditions of the visas, and measures to improve negotiation and management of labour agreements. This is an issue on which the government wants to have a program that has appropriate bona fide arrangements in place to ensure compliance, but it is a program that is in the national interest.
Mr Speaker, could I table the quotation?
The honourable member for Kennedy has sought leave to table the quotation.
Leave granted.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on Australia’s contribution to allied efforts to assist the elected government to bring security and stability to Iraq? Is he aware of any criticisms of this approach?
First of all, I thank the honourable member for Boothby. I know that he is a stalwart supporter of freedom around the world, including in Iraq.
Opposition members interjecting—
He is, Mr Speaker; he is. Yes, I am pleased to announce that yesterday we formally took over the overwatch role in a second province of Iraq, Dhi Qar province. Security responsibility for Dhi Qar was transferred to Iraq last month, and this is the second province where security has been transferred to the Iraqis. In the other, Al Muthanna, Australian troops have performed a stalwart role. Our overwatch role in Dhi Qar and Al Muthanna means that we will provide support to the Iraqi security forces in a crisis, if requested by the Iraqi government and/or coalition forces.
Of course, in addition to that, we are training Iraqis and transferring responsibility for security to the trained Iraqis, and the Australian Defence Force is doing an excellent job in achieving these things. There has been a lot of criticism from the opposition of the government’s policy—criticism, I must say, which is somewhat surprising, but nevertheless there has been criticism.
From the time the opposition leader launched some parliamentary attack on the government over this issue, though, I must say I have—and I think the community has—become increasingly bewildered as to the Labor Party’s position on Iraq. There have been three quite distinct positions that the Leader of the Opposition has taken on this issue in 10 days. First of all, he said that all troops should immediately leave Iraq. Then he did not feel very comfortable with that position so he moved on to a new position, which was that Australian troops should immediately leave Iraq, and the heavy lifting and the dangerous work should remain with the British and the Americans and other coalition forces who were in Iraq, but that Australia would just get out.
His third position was that maybe not all Australian troops should be withdrawn from Iraq immediately—maybe we should leave some people there; maybe we should leave some troops behind. In fact if you add up the numbers, something like 900 of the 1,400 would be left behind under position No. 3 from the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition cannot carry an argument from dawn till dusk without changing his position. Today the Leader of the Opposition in a radio interview when talking about his ‘all out of Iraq’ or ‘some out of Iraq’ or ‘some Australians out of Iraq but not all Australians out of Iraq’ position—or whatever his position is—said, ‘We are not going to go out in a way that inconveniences allies.’ So now we are going to say to the Americans and the British, and presumably the Iraqis, ‘Excuse me, but would it inconvenience you if we left?’ And they will say, ‘Yes, it would be a little inconvenient. It would be a little inconvenient to see a great nation like Australia cut and run. Would you mind staying?’ Presumably the Leader of the Opposition’s position No. 4 is, ‘Well, since it’s inconvenient, maybe we won’t do it.’ If you want to be the Prime Minister of Australia, you have to have a clear-cut position on big issues.
Ms Gillard interjecting
Order! The member for Lalor is warned.
The Leader of the Opposition professes to be some kind of strategic genius. He is always running around saying, ‘I know all about the civil war and General McClelland.’ He is his great hero from the civil war. He says that he knows all about the First World War, the Battle of the Somme, Fromelle, the Second World War and Tobruk. He knows all about this sort of thing; or so he claims in any case. But what we know about the Leader of the Opposition is that he cannot carry a serious argument, and cannot carry an argument with conviction and passion, from dawn till dusk. He certainly has not been able to on the issue of Iraq.
Government members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right will come to order.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to this Auditor-General’s report which reveals that between 1999 and 2003 Airservices Australia made more than $2.1 million in improper payments to Solomon Islands officials. Minister, how did the government allow this Australian link to corruption in the Solomon Islands to go on for over four years?
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Order! The member for Paterson is warned.
Although I am not the minister responsible for Airservices Australia, I am familiar enough with the issue to understand that the Auditor-General did not find any evidence of corruption and saw no basis for charges to be brought against anybody.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister confirm that the Office of Workplace Services has won back over $43 million for employees since its establishment? Is the minister aware of proposals to abolish this body protecting Australian employees and employers? What is the government’s response?
I thank my friend the member for Corangamite for his question and his support for ongoing workplace reform in Australia. I can confirm that the Office of Workplace Services, since its establishment in 1997, has won back more than $43 million for Australian workers where they were underpaid in the past. Indeed since the introduction of Work Choices on 27 March this year, the Office of Workplace Services has recovered over $5 million for almost 3,000 Australian workers. So this is a great service for Australian workers that the government has put in place. Furthermore, the Office of Workplace Services has conducted targeted industry education and compliance campaigns with the 193 inspectors and officials spread across 26 locations in Australia. These officials, those who have won back in total some $43 million for Australian workers, were the very same people who—
Ms Gillard interjecting
Order! The member for Lalor has been warned. She continues to interject. She will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Lalor then left the chamber.
What I was saying to the House is that these officials, who have been responsible for reclaiming in total some $43 million for Australian workers where they have been underpaid, are the very same officials whom the Leader of the Opposition described here in question time, in a disgraceful attack, as snivelling little liars. That is what the Leader of the Opposition called these people. This was a disgraceful attack on officials who were doing a public service—and not only that; they were doing a great service for so many workers in Australia. If the Leader of the Opposition had an ounce of ticker, he would have the guts to stand up at the dispatch box in here and apologise to those officials who are doing such good work for Australian workers. His failure to do so since he made those claims, and his ongoing failure to do that, just proves once again that he is nothing more than a stooge for the union movement in this country.
I was asked about plans in relation to abolishing this workers’ watchdog. Indeed there are plans for that, because the Leader of the Opposition has announced that he would, if elected to government, abolish this Office of Workplace Services, which has done so much for Australian workers throughout this country. Once again it shows that the Leader of the Opposition does nothing but the bidding of the union officials in Australia. Indeed yesterday we heard the news from the Office of Workplace Services that it had recovered a record $650,000 for another group of employees in Australia.
And I note that the response to this news—$650,000 being recovered for a group of employees in Australia—by the member for Perth, the opposition spokesperson for workplace relations, was to once again attack the Office of Workplace Services. What hypocrisy from a party that says it represents the workers of Australia—it attacks the very officials out there who are doing this work on behalf of the workers of Australia!
Indeed, the member for Perth has been running around this country week after week, month after month, saying to anybody who will listen to him that Work Choices offers no protections for Australian workers. This action on the part of the Office of Workplace Services proves once again that his claims are simply untrue. When confronted with this reality—the reality of all this money which has been recovered on behalf of workers—all we have from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth is yet another attack on the Office of Workplace Services. The Office of Workplace Services is protecting Australian workers; all the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is protect his union bosses.
My question is again to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I look forward to him coming into the chamber later to correct his previous answer.
The member will come to his question.
I refer to the 2001 cable that the minister received from the Australian High Commission in Honiara about improper payments being made from Airservices Australia to Solomon Islands officials and to the fact that these improper payments continued for a further two years until late 2003. Why did the minister turn a blind eye to this warning, just as he did to the 33 warnings he received about AWB’s kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime?
First of all, all cables—
Mrs Irwin interjecting
Order! The member for Fowler will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Fowler then left the chamber.
As I was just saying before I was so rudely interrupted, all cables are automatically, by definition, referred to my office, and that is about 130,000 a year. I would have thought that had become a bit apparent to people who knew something about how government works, because my portfolio is responsible for the cable system.
But let me just repeat what I said earlier: the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is responsible for the issue of Airservices Australia, not the foreign minister, and that has always been the case. The recent report by the Australian National Audit Office confirmed that the investigation undertaken by the Australian Federal Police considered the conduct of Airservices employees. The advice received from the AFP was that there was no evidence to support a charge of criminal conduct contrary to Commonwealth law by Airservices Australia employees. So I would have thought that, as usual, the right things were being done. There was an Auditor-General’s report; there has been an AFP investigation, and that is what we expect.
Mr Sercombe interjecting
The honourable member who has been so cruelly cut down by the Leader of the Opposition, whose career has been so brutally terminated, interjects and says, ‘What about good governance?’ It is precisely the point: good governance is making sure things are investigated. Good governance is making sure there is a proper accounting system. We had the Australian National Audit Office and we had the Australian Federal Police conduct an investigation. Indeed, that is good governance.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House of changes to Medicare that come into effect today? Will these changes deliver better treatment to people with mental illness, and how will the new Medicare preventative health measures help Australians, including people in my electorate of Moore?
I thank the member for Moore for his question, and I observe that he remains a very conscientious doctor as well as an influential and persuasive member of this House. From today I can inform the House that doctors and other health professionals will be able to deliver even more services under our great Medicare system. First, GPs will be able to provide patients with mental health plans, including access to up to 12 consultations with psychologists funded under Medicare.
Second, GPs will be able to provide their middle-aged patients with risk factors with mid-life health checks designed to pick up problems before they become really serious. Obviously, this mid-life health check may well pick up type 2 diabetes. I should observe on that note the presence of kids in the House today promoting the cause of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and say how proud the government has been to commit some $30 million to a national centre of excellence for islet transplantation principally based at Westmead hospital.
Third, practice nurses will be able to provide pap smears under Medicare throughout Australia and not just in country areas. Fourth, midwives and other health professionals will be able to provide antenatal services for and on behalf of GPs under Medicare in country areas. It is estimated that, altogether, Medicare will fund these services to the tune of some $600 million over the forward estimates period.
I know members opposite do not like hearing that the Howard government is the best friend that Medicare has ever had, but it is the best friend that Medicare has ever had, and it is measures like this which further demonstrate that this government will spend the money necessary—wisely invest the money necessary—to make a good system even better.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the minister to reports that in 2001 BP realised it had not complied with the customs regulations concerning the Poul Spirit oil shipment from Iraq and contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs asking for formal retrospective approval, which it never received—a fact which has been covered up. Minister, who handled the request for retrospective approval, and when was this request first made known to you?
Firstly, let me say that this is a matter that is being investigated by the Australian Federal Police. Secondly, the advice I have had from the Australian Federal Police—not of course the advice I have had from the Australian Labor Party—is that to engage in discussions about it is to compromise the investigation. I do not propose to do it.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the leader claim to have been misrepresented?
Grievously.
Please proceed.
During question time the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I must say, surprised me by saying that somehow I had changed our position on the subject of withdrawal of Australian forces from the southern part of Iraq. He partially read things I had to say about it this morning. What I said this morning is exactly what I have said now for a very considerable period of time. I will quote the whole lot: ‘I’d sit down with the Americans and I’d say, “Okay, the troops are coming out. We’re not going to do it in a way that inconveniences allies,”’ at which point the Minister for Foreign Affairs stopped, but, if he had gone on, he would have read, ‘but they are coming out, and we’ll talk through with them the process by which that would happen,’ and then it would happen.
Mr Speaker, I refer you to page 99 of the Department of Parliamentary Service’s annual report for the financial year 2005-06. Can you confirm the following with respect to Parliament House: (1) the water consumption target was a five per cent reduction over three years, but consumption last year jumped by 16 per cent; (2) the energy consumption target was a one per cent reduction over three years, but consumption jumped by 5.8 per cent last year; and (3) the greenhouse gas emissions target for this building was a 1.5 per cent reduction last year, but emissions jumped 4.6 per cent?
Government members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, I know that those opposite are terribly opposed to targets, but targets about these environmental considerations have been set.
Mr Tuckey interjecting
Order! The member for O’Connor is warned! The member for Grayndler is raising a serious question and he will be heard.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask you to investigate the matter and report back to the House on how this parliament can show leadership in achieving the targets which have been set?
I thank the member for Grayndler for his question. Clearly, it is a very detailed question, and I am very happy to make further investigations and report back as appropriate.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
The Minister for Education, Science and Training, in question time, claimed that I misled the House. She should know that, when the CSIRO were asked in Senate estimates this morning whether there had been a cut in funding for renewables, Dr Morton from the CSIRO said yes.
Mr Speaker, you will doubtlessly recall that I sought your assistance under standing order 105(b) on 9 October to follow up some questions, and I did get a peep out of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services but, to my horror, I overlooked two questions. I would request that you send a letter to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs in relation to questions Nos 3189 and 3831, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 8 August, to which I have not received an answer and also question No. 3967, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 17 August 2006. I would be grateful if you would write to him and seek answers to those questions as soon as possible.
I thank the member for Lowe. Am I right in saying that those last two questions were less than three months ago?
No, Mr Speaker. It was 17 August. It is All Saints Day today, 1 November, and it is All Souls Day tomorrow, 2 November. It has to be more than 60 days, so I can raise the matter any time—you know I am a serial practitioner of this.
I thank the member for Lowe. I think all members are well aware of that. I will follow up his request.
Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following documents:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Report—Many ways forward: Capacity building and service delivery in Indigenous communities—Government response, August 2006.
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Grayndler proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The need for strong Government leadership to address the real and present threat posed to Australia’s economy and environment by dangerous climate change.
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—
For a decade the Howard government has ignored the scientists. For a decade the Howard government has ignored the economists. This is a government that only has ears for the pollsters. The glaciers are retreating and so too is the Howard government. Just as the dinosaurs were wiped out by the ice age, there is a need for the dinosaurs in the Howard government to be wiped out politically by the age of global warming. Climate change is a serious threat. The Stern report this week has shone a light on the potential impact of climate change on our economy—the Great Depression but with much worse weather.
The Howard government has known about the threat of climate change for a very long time. There have been CSIRO reports. Ministers and departmental officials have attended numerous international meetings on climate change where the threat has been spelt out. Indeed, they did not have to wait for the Stern report to outline the environmental consequences of climate change because in June 2005 the Howard government received the Climate change: risk and vulnerability report. It outlined the consequences for Australia: the 30 per cent drop in rainfall, the more extreme weather events in northern Australia, where cities such as Townsville, Cairns, Darwin and Broome were all identified by that report as being at risk, and the disappearance of the iconic areas of the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu.
That is why no-one can take John Howard seriously on climate change. Yesterday we saw him put seven different positions between two o’clock and a quarter to four. Yesterday the Prime Minister invented new Kyoto. It does not exist. I googled new Kyoto and I invite people to do so. When you google new Kyoto, one entry comes up. Does it mention climate change? Does it mention emissions reductions? Does it mention renewable energy? Does it mention the United Nations? No, the one entry on new Kyoto—the one real new Kyoto which is there—is the Hotel New Kyoto. What pops up is a review, and the review says this:
Stuffy rooms—Would choose another.
It says:
The worst aspect of the room was that the window didn’t open and there is no way—
wait for it—
to cool the room down or get some fresh air. They only have a heater (which works really well, blowing out only hot air).
That is the new Kyoto of the Howard government—no substance and something made up on the run. Today is day 2 of what will be regarded as the turning point in the climate change debate—and, I might say, the turning point for another nail in the government’s coffin—because climate change will be an issue which will see the Howard government left behind. We are the future party, the only party, that is able to take Australia forward into this century and look after this generation and generations to come.
The Kyoto protocol, of course, does exist. We saw today, on day 2 of this debate, the Howard government having no answers whatsoever. We sat in tactics this morning and we thought, ‘They’ll have five or six questions on Kyoto,’ but they had nothing. What happened with our questions? The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether Australia and the United States would have a vote at the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol—the second meeting that is taking place in Nairobi this month. The Prime Minister did not have a clue. He did concede that there were two meetings, and there are two. One is the conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which Australia has signed. Yes, we will be participating in that meeting.
But there is a second series of meetings—the meetings of the parties to the Kyoto protocol—that will be sitting down looking at practical measures about how the clean development mechanism operates, the joint implementation system and the opportunities for Australia in the first commitment period between 2008 and 2012. Common sense tells you that the post-2012 Kyoto agreement, which this government now concedes is a reality—forget the ‘new Kyoto’ rhetoric; it is about the next step in Kyoto, the second commitment period of Kyoto from 2013 onwards—will, of course, evolve from the first period of Kyoto. By Australia being on the outside, not able to vote and not able to participate in those discussions in Nairobi, we are doing ourselves a great disservice. India will be there and China will be there, but we will not be around the table during that debate.
This morning we heard from Elliot Morley. I have met with Elliot Morley. He was the climate change minister in the Blair Labor government. I spent two hours with him last year. When you meet world leaders, not just of the Left but of the Right, in Germany and Denmark, and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Californian government, they express horror at the position of this government, because the truth is that the position of this government is holding the world back. That is what we heard from Elliot Morley this morning—the fact that Australia’s intransigence and position outside of Kyoto, the undermining of Kyoto, gives the US cover, the two countries isolated outside of Kyoto. Elliot Morley and Tony Blair, and Arnold Schwarzenegger for that matter, want Australia to be part of Kyoto because they want to isolate the US and get them in as well. We are providing cover, a handbrake, on the global action that is needed to address climate change. Agreements do not just get made up in question time as a result of a poll or a tactics meeting.
Let us look at how this has evolved. In 1992 we had the Rio summit, which identified the issues and what was needed and established the United Nations framework, which Australia was a signatory to. It took five years of complex negotiations to get to the Kyoto agreement in 1997. Then it took from 1997 to 2005 to have enough countries which had ratified the agreement to make sure it came into effect on 16 February 2005. Every industrialised country in the world except Australia and the US is a part of this and the next agreement is about taking that forward.
Elliot Morley belled the cat. The Prime Minister puts forward the position which is to say, ‘We shouldn’t be a part of it until everyone else is,’ and particularly there is his offensive criticism of China and India. It is the United States that produces 25 per cent of the world’s emissions. Do we hear the Prime Minister say, ‘The United States should have targets, adopt emissions-trading and be part of the global system’? No. We hear him criticise the developing nations struggling to feed, house and clothe their people and to achieve economic growth and move forward. But the truth is they are doing better than we are. That is the truth.
The Stern report identifies China, California and the European Union as the three economic entities which are doing best. Elliot Morley’s comment today really said it all. It said it all about the failure of the Howard government to meet the greatest moral challenge of our times—avoiding dangerous climate change and showing national and international leadership. He said this:
... if we will take that attitude then there’ll be no progress at all, and we will just sleepwalk to oblivion ...
Common sense tells you how absurd this government’s position is. But instead of looking at the Stern report and looking seriously at the three core recommendations—first, that you need an international agreement that provides that economic framework and that that agreement is the Kyoto protocol; secondly, that you need emissions-trading and you need to have a price of carbon; and, thirdly, that you need to support renewable and clean coal technologies and that you need economic mechanisms to drive that change through—
Mr Hunt interjecting
The member for Flinders will have an opportunity to reply.
They are the three key recommendations of Stern for what he describes as the world’s greatest market failure that has led to dangerous climate change. Today, once again we have seen some more one-off announcements. We welcome one-off announcements—they are good in themselves—but we cannot solve this problem with a command economy approach. We cannot solve it with bureaucrats sitting in Canberra and picking winners. It is an absurd proposition.
You need to harness the power of the market and establish mechanisms so that you drive the whole economy towards the carbon constrained model. We know that the system at the moment is not working. We know that the figures released this week by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change showed that Australia’s greenhouse emissions rose by 25.1 per cent between 1990 and 2004. It is clear that when Kyoto comes in—which it has not yet; the first commitment period begins in 2008—and when land use changes are taken into account what will occur is that some of that figure will go down, but the projections are horrific for the government.
Energy emissions increased by 34.7 per cent between 1990 and 2004. Stationary energy emissions increased by 43 per cent; transport emissions by 23.4 per cent. The only reason that the figure goes anywhere near being positive—and it is still a massive increase—is that land use change and forestry emissions, due to decisions of the New South Wales and Queensland Labor governments—nothing to do with the Howard government—dropped 72.5 per cent. Australia’s emissions, according to the Australian Greenhouse Office report released in November 2005, are projected to rise 22 per cent by 2020.
One of my favourite parts of An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary by Al Gore, is that, just like the Stern report, there is a message of hope. There is a warning of danger, a challenge to governments to take up what is necessary, but an optimistic projection if we have the courage to make the decisions that are needed. As Al Gore has pointed out, the Chinese expression for crisis consists of two characters: the first is a symbol for danger; the second is a symbol for opportunity. What we are getting from this government is all the danger combined with the loss of opportunity, the loss of investment that should be occurring and isolation from the massive trillion dollar emerging market in renewables in our region. This is a government that is showing that it simply is not up to governing in this century. It is a government that literally has been fossilised in the past. It is an abrogation of its responsibility to this generation and to future generations not to have a comprehensive plan to avoid dangerous climate change. (Time expired)
This debate on climate change in the matter of public importance is not about action versus inaction, as has been presented by the member for Grayndler. It is not a debate about one side doing something and the other side doing nothing. It is a debate about the right way to deal with the real issue versus the wrong way to deal with the real issue. It is a debate about whether you take an approach which goes directly to the supply side and the source of emissions and targets pollution where it begins in an effective way or whether you take an approach—the wrong way—which goes to a petrol tax, a heating tax and things which rely on demand management and are forced, in a false way, on pensioners, farmers and low-income earners. This is what we are talking about—the Beazley petrol tax and the Beazley heating tax. These are real things which are going to hurt real Australians in a real way, but without even achieving the very thing that Labor wants.
It is also a debate about honesty. One of the things about honesty and competence is that you do not mislead the House. The member for Grayndler, only minutes ago, stood before this chamber and boasted about his great skills in research. I just want to hold up an article, ‘Ottawa’s new Kyoto plan emphasizes individuals’. The combination of ‘new Kyoto’, from advice that I have just received, has thousands of references available. Even the Google list has many of them. But the point that is important here is that he casually misled the House. He happily based an entire humorous speech on misleading the House. I just want to read that again: ‘Ottawa’s new Kyoto plan emphasizes individuals’. He was happily careless with the way he presented material. What is significant is that the man who wants to be the environment minister of Australia—although he may be lucky to hold onto his job as the shadow spokesperson for the environment in the next month or two—was not even able to do basic research.
Mr Albanese interjecting
Member for Grayndler, you know that I kept the member for Flinders quiet; I expect you to be quiet.
Let me deal with this debate in three stages. I want to put it in the context of, firstly, what is real and, secondly, how their way is the wrong way. If you focus on a demand management process which is utterly artificial and is aimed at driving down emissions by slashing demand for petrol and energy, then what you will do is very simple. You will only do this because they are inelastic goods or because people will not cut their consumption easily. (Quorum formed) This debate is about, on the one hand, targeting polluters and, on the other hand, punishing pensioners. That is what will come from Labor’s approach, and it will come very clearly, because inevitably their actions will lead to a direct impact on prices for heating, energy and petrol in a dramatic way. Let us never forget that their chosen tool and approach will be a means which attacks demand in order to drive down emissions. It relies on driving down the demand and, in order to drive down the demand, because they are inelastic goods, they are going to have to ratchet up these prices and hurt the people who are most vulnerable in our society—farmers, low-income earners, families and pensioners. We compare that—
Mr Albanese interjecting
The member for Grayndler has been warned. I will not warn you again.
with an approach which deals directly with emissions at source. That is what we have done over recent days. The context for this debate is very clear. Firstly, it is a real issue. I wrote about it in 1990 as a given fact and I have treated it as such ever since. But let us put this even more into context. Australia’s 1990 emissions were 550 million tonnes of CO or equivalent gases; Australia’s 2006 emissions were 560 million tonnes. That is a fact. The second fact is that Australia’s contribution to total global CO emissions is about 1.4 per cent; the United States is at almost 25 per cent; China is at almost 15 per cent, rising over time to 25 per cent; India is at five per cent and is also rising significantly; and the EU is at about 14 per cent. In that context, it is absolutely transparent that nothing will occur unless—precisely as the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources have said—we deal with the major emitters. To pretend that we do not need to do so, and to pretend that simply signing a sheet promising to do what we are doing in any event is going to make a difference, is a dishonesty and a fraud—and it is something which I say is a contempt of the Australian people.
So, against that background, it is important to remember, as well, that we have dealt with major problems before, whether it was the collapse through cholera and typhoid of much of London society 150 years ago—we dealt with that through dealing with technology straight-up—or acid rain and problems of the ozone hole. We have dealt with all those directly. Against that, what about the opposition’s wrong way? On the domestic side, what they are proposing is a demand management system, and this demand management is based precisely on a petrol tax and a pensioners’ heating tax. Those are the fundamental elements. Our friend will say, ‘We’re going to cap it and trade it,’ but what that means if we do it unilaterally—
Mr Albanese interjecting
The member for Grayndler will remove himself from the House under standing order 94(a).
Mr Albanese interjecting
I do not have to have one.
as the member for Grayndler makes his way out of this House—is very—
I name the honourable member for Grayndler.
I move:
That the member for Grayndler be suspended from the service of the House.
Question put.
I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on this matter of public importance on the need for strong government leadership to address the real and present threat posed to Australia’s economy and environment by dangerous climate change. I must admit, though, I am struggling still to get my head around the logic of the previous speaker, the member for Flinders, although I thought it was very telling that he stood up and said that he was happy to outline the initiatives that the Howard government has taken over the last couple of days. What is telling about that is that it highlights the lack of action that the Howard government has taken over the last decade. That is something that we know on this side of the House and the Australian community also knows that very well.
I have risen to speak on the issue of climate change in this House on a number of previous occasions and again today I welcome the release of the British government’s Stern report, which reaffirms in stark detail what we on this side of the House have been warning for some time. I absolutely believe in the need for strong government leadership on this issue. I speak today not just of my own absolute belief that this government has let people down but to represent the people of my electorate of Adelaide, who regularly inundate my office with letters and calls of despair at the lack of action by this Howard government.
I have just a couple of examples of these sorts of sentiments from my own constituents, which I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House. One wrote to me saying:
Dear Kate,
Thanks for the letter of 22 March responding to an email I sent you. I read the ALP climate change policy presented by Kim Beazley and it was excellent, combining the necessary warnings with constructive solutions.
He went on to say:
Personally, I think John Howard will be cursed by future generations for wasting his golden opportunity to act, but he’ll be long gone by then.
Another wrote to me saying:
Dear Ms Ellis,
Thank you for showing that movie the Inconvenient Truth to us free of charge. That really opened my eyes to the effect that we are having in this planet. Before I saw that movie I thought the extreme weather was just natural and that the planet just goes through these cycles. But now I believe that we are the ones causing it. I don’t even want a V8 anymore. I think that I’ll make do with my own Corolla. When that guy said on the movie that America and Australia were the only developed countries that hadn’t signed the Kyoto protocol I felt really embarrassed.
That is a sentiment that is shared by millions of people around this country and by many of us in this House today, who think it is an absolute tragedy that the government have so massively failed the Australian people.
Whilst it is a tragedy, I actually do not think that it is really a surprise. It is no surprise, because the absolute first principle in tackling climate change is admitting the problem. The Stern report accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is a man-made global threat to the sustainability of life on earth, yet the truth is that the Howard government still does not accept this. We see evidence of this in the comments from the government’s own Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, who has consistently criticised the Kyoto protocol and who, as recently as just two months ago, admitted that while he acknowledged the climate was changing he was sceptical that the cause was greenhouse gas emissions. As was reported on 5AA in my home state of South Australia yesterday—and a fine radio station it is, I might add—the minister went on to say that the federal government is ‘already doing enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions’ and that it is other countries that need to step up and do something.
We see evidence of this head-in-the-sand approach all throughout the Howard government—in the comments from the coalition Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, De-Anne Kelly, who likened the scientific warnings on climate change to 19th century warnings on horse manure, arguing this week that, ‘At the turn of the century economists in the US predicted horsedrawn carriages would lead to the country being covered in horse “you-know-what”.’
We saw evidence of this again yesterday with the comments by the Liberal MP and scientist Dr Jensen, when he restated his scepticism about global warming. In comments reported by the AAP, he stated, ‘I am somewhat sceptical about global warming.’ He went on and argued that, ‘Too much has been seen in a short-term trend and to me there’s too much conflicting evidence as well, so for me the jury is still out.’ This is from the Howard government’s own scientist! The jury should be in no doubt about where the Australian Liberal Party and the Howard government stand on climate change. They simply do not accept, as the rest of Australia and indeed the people of the 165 countries who have ratified Kyoto accept, that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of climate change, a phenomenon which threatens our global environment, our global economies and our very existence on this planet.
But you may ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it really matters if the government actually believe it. Does it matter if they actually believe how serious this issue is or whether they just act and introduce some policies because the Australian people demand it? I would absolutely stand here and say it matters—it matters because it is the difference between showing bold leadership and vision on the issue and just offering one-off, piecemeal policies to try and settle down the Australian public and show that you are actually doing something.
This is why the Howard government’s approach on climate change has been so inconsistent and reactive. The inconsistencies do not take long to pick up, and I fear that I will not have time to outline all of the massive inconsistencies in the Howard government’s policy on this. We had the Howard government, which has consistently refused to participate in an international carbon-trading scheme, yesterday announcing that it would participate in a scheme only if all other countries did so first. The logic in this simply beggars belief. It is actually an embarrassment to this country. The simple response is: what happens if one other prime minister or one other president shares that sort of logic? The answer is: it does not go ahead. At the very heart of it all we have heard the Howard government’s adamant refusal to sign on to Kyoto because they believe it would cost Australia jobs—but, of course, they also argue that Australia will most likely reach the targets in the protocol anyway, so there is no need to sign it, but that reaching these targets will not cost us jobs. So figure out how those two policies are not completely inconsistent.
We also know that the government have completely changed their tune since their original decision in 1997 to sign on to the protocol at a time when the Prime Minister said that it was a win for the environment and a win for Australian jobs. While the government today masquerade as a believer in climate change, the reality is that they do not accept it. They are fools, because they are intent on clinging to their outdated views on climate change and now, as community understanding of these issues has so completely accelerated, the government are finally being exposed for their neglectful approach.
The list of Howard government failures and inconsistencies goes on. We have the federal government’s Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which depends upon market based renewable energy targets which have been established by our state governments—a policy that the Howard government has explicitly rejected. We have the $550 million worth of renewable energy projects that have had to be abandoned in my state of South Australia and in Tasmania because the Howard government has not increased the mandatory renewable energy target. We have the Howard government’s embarrassing about-face this month on its nonsensical decision to end the solar rebate program after sustained community pressure for them to do so.
And in my electorate we are also seeing the consequence of the Howard government’s backward thinking and lack of practical measures to address climate change in a scandal that is currently unfolding involving a very cute electric car known as the Reva. I am proud that it is a company in my electorate of Adelaide, the Solar Shop, that last year imported an all-electric car into this country in the hope of offering Australians an alternative to a petrol car that would slash their motoring expenses and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But this government have refused to allow the car onto Australian roads just because they do not have a category that would allow the car to be imported and driven in this country.
Unlike in the UK, where this car is winning awards for innovation and is being trumpeted by both sides of politics for its environmental credentials, in Australia the government will order this Sunday that the one Reva electric vehicle in the Solar Shop in Adelaide must be crushed. I think this is an absolute disgrace, but it is a pretty good illustration of where the Howard government stands on practical measures. Rather than encouraging families who want to adopt a greener vehicle, it is demanding that this vehicle be crushed. I think this an absolute disgrace.
In contrast, we on this side of the House actually have policies and practical measures. We have argued that we would ratify Kyoto. We would increase the mandatory renewable energy target; we would establish a national carbon-trading scheme; we would make Australia’s 10,000 schools solar powered schools; we would help Australia to have 1.5 million solar powered homes by 2015; and there are many other measures that we will continue to push to the Australian people. (Time expired)
I am glad to address the MPI put forward by the Labor Party asking that the government show leadership. Leadership is about actions, not words. Leadership is investing money in our economy that will address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is on track for its 108 per cent target, as set down by Kyoto, by 2012. By way of contrast, Canada’s target was 94 per cent, but it will be 116 per cent, an increase of 22 per cent over the target. Norway’s target was 101 per cent; it will be 22 per cent over target. France’s target was 100 per cent; it will be nine per cent over target. Ireland will be 20 per cent over the target—and the numbers go on.
Another thing the member for Grayndler ridiculed is the new Kyoto concept. He said he could only find one hit when he went on Google. I have a search page for Google, and it got more than 24 million hits, a lot of them relating to the new Kyoto type of policy. The only new Kyoto the Labor Party are interested in is the ‘Sleepy Hollow Hotel’, where perhaps they go.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
A quorum is required. Ring the bells.
The bells being rung
Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the time at which the member for Cowan was ejected from the House.
I think he has served his hour.
(Quorum formed)
This government is investing in technologies that will reduce greenhouse gases. In fact, we have already allocated some $2 billion, including $500 million for the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, $100 million for the Renewable Energy Development Initiative, $75 million for Solar Cities initiatives and $100 million for the energy fund announced as part of the Asia-Pacific partnership, 25 per cent of which is dedicated to renewable energy development.
While I am talking about the AP6, I have some figures from the IEA’s Key World Energy Statistics 2006 that relate to fuel-combustion-generated CO emissions. I point out that the USA generates 5.8 billion tonnes of CO; Japan generates 1.2 billion tonnes; China generates 4.7 billion tonnes; India generates 1.1 billion tonnes; Korea generates 0.4 billion tonnes; and Australia generates 0.35 million tonnes. About 50 per cent of world emissions come from that AP6 group.
It is what you do that is important, not what you say. The members opposite believe that, by signing Kyoto, tomorrow it will rain and the drought will end. The members opposite believe that, by signing a piece of paper, the increased sea temperatures will go back to their normal levels. There is argument about cyclic effect and researching the ice cores of glaciers and the North Pole. But it is actions that count, and this government is investing money in new technologies to address climate change. We Australians account for about 1.4 per cent of total world greenhouse gas emissions, but the way the opposition speaks it is as though we contributed some 98.6 per cent of emissions. (Quorum formed)
The member for Hunter and I do not usually agree on too much, but both of us would agree that coal exports out of the Hunter are worth about $5 billion per year for 80 million tonnes of coal—about 95 per cent of our region’s total exports—and we would both agree that the Hunter produces some 40 per cent of Australia’s aluminium and that we have four power generation systems powered by coal, which generate some 80 per cent of the state’s electricity. The other thing that the member for Hunter and I both agree on is his statement earlier that Kyoto is basically a European model, and it is true that it is flawed, it is not without its difficulties and it is pretty much dead in the water. We agree on that, because we believe in the jobs of Australian people, the opportunity to work without fear. Fear is placed upon them by the Labor opposition, who, as I said before, believe that, if you sign the Kyoto agreement today, it will rain tomorrow. The reality is that it will not. Australia can punch well above its weight, like it does in most forums, by investing in new and emerging technologies which will address greenhouse gas emissions—technologies that we can take forward into other countries to help them reduce their emissions.
I have been to China and India: there is visual pollution, predominantly caused by home cooking fuels, by people burning coal or other fossil fuels to generate heat for cooking and warmth in winter. By having clean-coal technologies to generate electrical power, we as a country can help to reduce international greenhouse gas emissions.
I would like to make a contribution to this matter of public importance. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, there is a lot of debate on climate change; you participated in a debate last week on rural policy which touched on the drought and water policy and also on supposed linkages to climate change. Irrespective of who is right in this debate—and the judgement as to who got it right in terms of the way to manage the debate will probably be cast in some decades time—most people would now agree that what we are doing in relation to greenhouse emissions is not the right thing to do for the longevity of the earth on which we live and the health of those people who live upon it.
There has been a lot of talk about coal, carbon credits, greenhouse gas emissions et cetera, but I would like to bring the House back to the renewable energy debate that was going on quite strongly while oil prices were rising some months ago—debate has calmed down in this country; it has not in others—particularly in relation to renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. I draw to the House’s attention that in the United States and Europe and other parts of the developed world where there is a high usage of petrol engines and diesel engines there has been a concerted move to clean the fuels up. I know we are doing it with sulfur and diesel and we have done it with lead in petrol et cetera, so certain mandates have been issued by this government as to what we can and cannot have within our various fuels. In other parts of the world, particularly in the United States, the debate has been driven by concern about the health of people in communities.
In Minnesota, for instance, they were very concerned about the fine-particle emissions from unleaded petrol and very concerned about the emissions from diesel motors. They actually mandated a 10 per cent level, not to help the farming community—obviously it did do that—but mainly to assist with health issues.
I heard the Minister for Trade, Warren Truss, saying a couple of weeks ago that if we mandated 10 per cent we could not bring it in anyway because we could not deliver; we would have to import the fuel. That sort of argument is a nonsense. I think that is where the government is struggling a bit in this debate. It is really not leading the debate; it is responding, mostly in negatives. It is not like the Prime Minister to be responding in that sense. Normally he has a logical argument that people can understand. In a number of these arguments the issues fall apart.
In the United States this health issue was the main driver behind introducing a mandate for ethanol and biodiesel. It was introduced over a period of years. It was phased in in major cities first, because they were the great concern with fine-particle emissions, then in the outer suburbs of the major cities and then, over a couple of years, in country towns as well. That seems to be a reasonable way of doing it. That has happened in a number of other countries in the world.
The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has been fairly prominent in this debate. He has shifted his position quite considerably, from being very negative about Al Gore’s visit—portraying it as being some sort of sideshow at the zoo—to having some degree of concern about what we are doing to the globe, within a few weeks. And I think that highlights the lack of leadership that is being displayed at a government level. But the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources keeps making these comments that Labor’s agenda—of having carbon taxes, other taxes and treaties and Kyoto accords et cetera—is not the way to go. I think there is a glaring anomaly in the policy base that the government has adopted.
If the industry minister actually believes that, why are the government going to impose a tax on renewable fuels in 2011? Why do they have a policy mix which, when it is delivered, is anti the introduction of renewable energy, renewable fuels—ethanol, biodiesels and a number of others? Why are they imposing a tax on something that they say the government are working towards in a practical way? And I think that is something that the government really do need to look at. It is hypocritical to blame the opposition: on one hand, to say, ‘Ah well, it is all about carbon taxes and you can’t do that without the Chinese and the Indians and others coming on board’, and then, on the other hand, to have a system where they say, ‘We’re encouraging the fuel companies, through the Prime Minister having a cup of coffee with the fuel companies last year, to try and achieve targets.’
That is the other thing the industry minister says: ‘Targets and taxes? No, you can’t go there! Targets, taxes and treaties—that is the Labor way. You can’t go there.’ Why have they put in place a mandatory renewable energy target of 360 megalitres of biofuels by 2010? Why has that been put in place? It is actually running at 28 megalitres at the moment, so it has a long way to go, and it is obvious, in the first year of that cup-of-coffee treaty that was put in place between the Prime Minister and the fuel companies, that it is not working very successfully.
Looking at the logic in this debate, why are they saying that a target is acceptable if they put it in place, but it is not acceptable if other global communities put it in place—that it is some sort of retrograde step and a form of compulsion and that there are other ways of achieving the outcome? Yes, there are other ways of achieving the outcome, but why have they got MRETs in place in a number of areas? Why are they debating that they should be so low for wind and solar et cetera?
The industry minister particularly keeps saying that taxing is not the way to drive the renewable energy debate. Well, I would agree with that. But he is going to impose a tax on a system where they are encouraging at the moment, through cup-of-coffee diplomacy, an MRET of 360 megalitres of biofuels, a tax on those people who move towards the production of those biofuels. That does not sound a very practical policy initiative to me, and I think it encapsulates the dilemma the government is in in relation to this.
There is nothing wrong with being behind on an issue. And normally the Prime Minister is very smart in addressing an issue, realising that the government is in the wrong part of the paddock and should move to a more acceptable place, recognising new information et cetera. But on this issue he seems to be staggering, and his minister, who is in charge of this debate, seems to be quite at sea in terms of the policy messages that we are being sent.
I think it is very important that the government actually makes up its mind. Are we going to use renewable energy as a tax cow? Is that going to go on into the future forever? Are we going to encourage people to move towards these things? Or, when we get there, when they start to do it, do we see it as a source of income—like we did with superannuation?
I think the Labor Party really has to make up its mind on some of these issues as well. It is tending to play the climate change game at the moment, and I think it is probably scoring some points there. But where is its policy on taxation of renewable fuels for our motorcars from 2011? It is sort of in this ‘me too’ range at the moment. I think there is a degree of hypocrisy in its long-term approach to renewable fuels that its policymakers need to address as well.
So I make those suggestions in the hope that the government and the opposition can actually work through this, because I think the climate in which we live is a very precious thing and should be addressed in a united fashion, not in one of conflict. (Time expired)
Order! The discussion is now concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Nairn:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak in absolute opposition to the sale of Medibank Private. We on this side of the House are absolutely committed to keeping Medibank Private in public hands. The previous speaker, the member for Moncrieff, claimed several times in his speech that the opposition were engaging in a scare campaign regarding the sale of Medibank Private, but I have to say that it does not need the opposition to scare the Australian people when it comes to this government—it is scary enough all on its own. In fact we could take a holiday for the next year and the Australian people would still be increasingly fearful as they look at this government’s approach to industrial relations, welfare, the selling off of our assets and the way it is completely ignoring one of the most serious issues we face: that is, climate change. We oppose the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 bill not because we are trying to scare the Australian people but because the government has well and truly failed to make its case. It has failed to make any economic argument that the sale of Medibank Private would benefit the community, nor has it made the case that it has the right to sell Medibank Private from underneath its members.
There are elements in this legislation that demonstrate that the government knows full well that it has not made its case. This is a bill that on the one hand sets up the framework for the privatisation of Medibank Private and at the same time protects the government if it has got it wrong. We of course believe that it has got it wrong. It is telling that the government moves in this bill to protect itself from its errors but is not concerned about protecting the community if it has got it wrong. So it protects itself, but it puts the community right in it. We believe of course that the best way to protect the Australian community is to get it right: get the bill right before you bring it to this House. Do the work and make sure that you get it right, then you will not need to build in protections for yourself. We do not believe that the government has made a case for the privatisation of Medibank Private—and, looking at the contents of this bill, nor does the government.
Once again we are looking at a piece of legislation that is more about ideology than reality. I once heard a very wise woman in my electorate talk about politicians. I cannot remember who she was, unfortunately, and I would really like to give her credit because she gave a beautiful explanation of some of the characteristics that you see in politicians from both sides of the House. She said that in politics you can find people who are so based in idealism and ideology that they cannot see reality but that, on the other hand, there are those at the opposite end who are so based in reality and pragmatism that they have lost the ability to see the ideal. I can see my parliamentary colleague nodding. We all know people in this House who sit at either end of the spectrum—each has its their place as one of a range of views. Sometimes it is quite good to be able to borrow a purist view to inform your own perspective on a complex issue. But save us from a government that is founded in one end or the other.
When it comes to this government and its Prime Minister, particularly when it comes to privatisation, we have an ideologue—a man so obsessed with ideology that he cannot even bother to deal with the practicalities of actually going about what he believes he must do. He has a blind belief in the ideology of privatisation. For the Prime Minister, private is always better than public. It is a matter of faith. Never mind all of the opinions that offer a contrary view. Never mind the practical problems of the rights of members, which have been raised by so many in the debate that has surrounded the government’s decision to privatise Medibank Private. For the government, private has to be better because it is, according to John Howard. Never mind the realities of the company—its three million members and their rights. Never mind that three million members have made their choice to stick with Medibank Private, many of them having done so for many years. This is Howard’s ideology and he believes he is absolutely right!
He spruiks choice. The whole government spruiks choice. Never mind that three million Australians have made their own choice and chosen to go with Medibank Private as it is. Never mind that those three million members are happy with Medibank Private. Never mind that the vast majority of them, certainly the ones whom I have spoken to, actually like Medibank Private exactly as it is. This is old ideology first raised 20 years ago as part of a sweeping privatisation agenda. It has been carried along in his bag of tricks for 20 years and is being brought out now and foisted on three million Australians. There is nothing new in this Prime Minister. All the big-ticket items from this Prime Minister come from 20 years ago. There is nothing new here, and we can see that in the Prime Minister’s complete inability to face the climate change challenges that this country faces.
Ironically, Medibank Private was created by the Fraser government back in 1976 to contribute to an efficient, competitive and viable private health service industry. There are now three million Medibank Private members, as I have said. That represents almost 30 per cent of the entire private health insurance market. Those three million people are exercising their right to choose to go with Medibank Private. Again, Howard spruiks choice like a mantra but dismisses it completely for those three million people—
The member will refer to members by their title or by their electorate.
Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The government spruiks choice like a mantra, but the Prime Minister dismisses it completely for those three million people who have chosen a different path. Those three million people think that Medibank Private as it is is the way to go, but the Prime Minister knows better. He thinks he knows what is better for them and is going to make sure that they have it. For the Howard government, private is better than public; it is an article of faith. I am sure they chant that every morning. There are 39 other health insurance companies in the Australian market, yet these three million people have chosen Medibank Private—30 per cent of the market have chosen Medibank Private.
I say to John Howard: leave those three million people alone. They have made their choice. They are happy with it. Find someone else to pick on. If Medibank Private is so inefficient and so inferior to private companies then market forces will drive customers away from Medibank Private to one of the other 39 companies. If Medibank Private is so inefficient in public hands that it is not doing the job then market forces will do the job, and I am sure the government understands that idea.
The government cannot even put up or argue a reason for selling it off. They assert that the sale will allow the fund to be more competitive. It already has 30 per cent of the market and three million members. It has posted surpluses in recent times and has consistently low management fees, but apparently it needs to be sold off in order to be more competitive. How much more competitive does the government want it to be? It has three million members and 30 per cent of the market. It is posting surpluses and has consistently low management fees. There is nothing in the privatisation of Medibank Private that actually allows it to move in ways that would make it more competitive. All that it does allow Medibank Private to do is to distribute dividends to shareholders. That is the single significant change that this bill would make to Medibank Private.
The government asserts that allowing Medibank Private to be more competitive by selling it off is somehow going to put downward pressure on premiums—even though a Medibank Private will no doubt seek to pay dividends to its shareholders. The government has form when it talks about premiums for health insurance. It has been talking about downward pressure on premiums for years and yet, during that time, they have actually risen 40 per cent. There is no reason to believe that Medibank Private—one of 40 companies serving the health insurance market in Australia, representing 30 per cent of the market, without any real, significant change in the way it operates and suddenly needing to pay dividends to its shareholders—would somehow force down premiums. Who believes the government? Nobody.
Terry McCrann, a well-respected commentator, has said premiums will rise if you privatise Medibank Private. The AMA has said that premiums will not fall because of this; they are more likely to rise. There is no evidence that the sale will reduce premiums or increase competition. In fact, after the sale there will be the same number of providers that there were before and the vast majority will be not-for-profit organisations. There are 40 health insurance providers in the Australian market, and only four are for profit. Forty health insurers before the sale of Medibank Private; forty health insurers after the sale of Medibank Private—the same number. There is quite significant choice for the Australian people, yet 30 per cent of them still choose Medibank Private.
The government claims there will be downward pressure on premiums, yet there is evidence to suggest that Medibank Private moving to a for-profit format could cause a domino effect through the rest of the industry, and we would see more of those 36 not-for-profit health insurers moving to a for-profit model, again distributing dividends to shareholders and forcing premiums up, not down. Premiums have gone up 40 per cent since 2001, when the government began promising that there would be downward pressure on premiums.
The government, of course, has had a private report, but it will not release it. That report might or might not confirm the government’s position but, since the government will not release it publicly, one has to be sceptical about its content even though the government paid for it. Nor is the government sure that it stands on solid legal ground in selling off Medibank Private from underneath the three million shareholders. The government had initial advice that there was a problem, so it went out and got some advice from a private firm that better suited its needs. Now the Parliamentary Library has come back and said, ‘No, members have rights.’ The interesting part of this bill in relation to this is the way the government is protecting itself just in case it is wrong. My expectation, as I said earlier, is that the government would protect us all by actually getting it right before it introduces the bill to the House—not by protecting itself in the bill after the event just in case it got it wrong. But, true to form, we have a government looking after itself first and doing the wrong thing by three million Australians who are members of Medibank Private.
Do the three million members have rights—yes or no? There are different views on this. An initial research brief by the Parliamentary Library concluded that it was arguable that members had the right to the benefit of the existing surplus assets of the fund. It was not argued that the members owned the funds but that the members had rights to the existing assets of the fund. After the release of that research brief, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the board of Medibank Private had sought legal advice some years earlier and raised serious questions about whether the Commonwealth was the sole owner and whether its 2.8 million members at that time also had ownership rights.
The current assets of Medibank Private are around $500 million. That is $500 million that three million Australians might or might not have rights over. The bill, however, allows that preprivatisation profits be redistributed to shareholders following privatisation. In other words, the bill takes that $500 million that three million Australians might have rights over and allows it to be distributed to the shareholders that buy Medibank Private in the float. The government commissioned its own legal advice, which puts another position altogether. The lawyers Blake Dawson Waldron conclude that the Commonwealth will not be liable to pay compensation to members—a quite clear difference of opinion between the lawyers that the government engaged to review the situation and the independent review from the Parliamentary Library. The government, however, still manages to hedge its bets. It is still really not sure about what is happening here. Even though its independent legal advice has said the government will not be liable to pay compensation, it has still put in the bill some commitment to compensate existing members—but in exactly what way is not disclosed. There is still a lot of doubt and speculation about exactly what that means.
Given that the nature of the compensation has not been disclosed and that it is still an open question, one has to assume that the issue of whether those members have rights is still an open question. Once again, the government has given away that it knows that full well—because it has ensured in this bill that, if those three million members seek to make a claim, that claim will need to be made against the company, the privatised Medibank Private, and not against the government. In other words, even though it swears that its independent legal advice says there is no problem, it still sets about leaving the way open to compensate members just in case it is wrong, and it builds in a clause that says, ‘And, if we did get it wrong and you’re going to make a claim, claim it against the private Medibank Private, not against the government.’ It has well and truly managed to protect itself in this little bit of folly that it is entering into on behalf of the Australian people. The government is most likely dudding three million ordinary Australians and, if it gets it wrong, it will be dudding quite a few ordinary Australian shareholders as well.
This is a bill which does not serve the interests of Australia well. This plan to sell Medibank Private has not been thought through. The work has not been done by the government. No economic case has been made that demonstrates that there will be an economic benefit to the community as a result of the sale of Medibank Private. In fact, quite the contrary: there is considerable evidence that premiums will rise because of the sale of Medibank Private. Nor have the government demonstrated that they are confident that they have the right to sell Medibank Private from under the feet of its three million members, and they have demonstrated that by ensuring that they protect themselves in this bill if they have in fact got it wrong.
I strongly suggest to the government that, even if they continue to want to sell Medibank Private, they take this back to the drawing board and ensure that they have got it right before they do so. I would further suggest to the government that they should not even be considering selling it and that the evidence that premiums will rise is overwhelming. Their track record of ensuring that premiums do not rise is appalling, with a 40 per cent rise over the last five years.
This is not a government that has shown it knows how to manage this area well. This is a government that has increased the cost to ordinary Australians by an incredible amount over five years, and this bill will only make the situation worse. I urge the government to vote against this bill.
I find it very interesting that the member for Parramatta complains about price rises of 40 per cent over the last five years, when Medibank Private is a government owned body. Surely, if we were worried about the price increases over the last five years we would say, ‘Let’s try to do it differently.’ That is the weakest argument I have ever heard, coming from someone opposite, suggesting that what has happened in the past is a valid reason for changing the situation. (Quorum formed) Isn’t it interesting that, barely 30 seconds into my speech, Labor decides to deprive me and this chamber of free speech in what I think is a very important debate. Obviously the Labor Party thinks it is an important debate, given the number of people who have decided to put their name on the speakers list.
I think Labor have got Medibank Private confused with the original Medibank that was introduced by Bill Hayden on 1 July 1975. Things have changed a fair bit since then. Why would we want to keep a business in government hands when we already have 38 different companies out there competing on the open market?
The member for Parramatta and the member for Lalor suggested—and I think it is a very obvious red herring—that the government would have to compensate the policyholders. The government have had legal arguments. Labor have suggested that the Parliamentary Library has a different argument. I would always suggest that professional legal expertise is far more important than legal expertise obtained from a library. The member for Parramatta also suggested that market forces will drive customers away. That has nothing to do with this debate. This debate is about whether we think a business—one that is obviously run quite competitively, with 38 other competitors—needs to be government owned. I do not think so.
Certainly, the Labor Party did not think we needed the Commonwealth Bank to be in government hands when they were in government. They did not think Qantas needed to be in government hands when they were in government. They have pretty good form on this. When they were in government they would privatise anything that was standing if they thought it would bring them some extra money for their coffers. The problem with the way that Labor handled privatisation was that they used most of the proceeds as general revenue rather than the way we have used it: to reduce Labor’s debt.
I remind people in this chamber of Labor’s record on debt. Over the period of 90 years from Federation, there were two world wars and a depression and we built a new capital city. After 90 years of Federation, up until 1991, we had accumulated $16 billion in debt. However, every year for the next five years Labor repeated that $16 billion debt—an amount which the country had taken 90 years to record—and took our debt from $16 billion to $96 billion. We have taken the responsible attitude of not selling the family silver, and we have said that we will use that money to retire debt. (Quorum formed)
It is a record for me to have two quorums called when I have been making a speech. I wonder whether I can create another record and get a third. The whip’s position is quite fascinating. This must be her greatest contribution to the parliament since she has been here.
There are very clear reasons why we should sell Medibank Private. Firstly, we must note that in the competitive private health insurance sector there are 38 competing funds. What viable policy reason does a government have to continue to own a health fund? Qantas is one of the most competitive and financially strong airlines in the world, and we can therefore clearly see the benefits of a company being run privately by the best people available—not by the government but by the best people available—and in the interests of the shareholders.
Let us be honest here. Businesses are best run by people who know what they are doing—not necessarily by bureaucrats. Qantas was privatised by the Labor government. From a business point of view, it is clear that competition in the market gives consumers options. And isn’t that what we are all about—giving choices, options for people to decide which fund is best for them and how their money is best spent? By making Medibank Private a fully commercial and privately owned company, that will allow the business to be more efficient through lower management expenses. It will give scope for expansion into new business areas, for example other forms of insurance and other medical or financial products. Through a more efficient operation, this will enable the health fund to further restrain premium growth.
Many people question whether the sale will lead to a rise in premiums. Obviously health insurance premiums will rise in the future because of the increased costs of medical technology and the cost of professional medical staff, and this is relevant to all health insurance providers. However, Medibank Private’s premiums will not rise as a result of the sale of the fund; it will be just like other funds. It is all about giving Australians a choice of private health cover for themselves and their families—and we all know that Labor hates private health.
In 1976 the government set up Medibank Private and provided the initial capital. Medibank was the precursor to Medicare, which I think Labor is confused about. The government injected an additional $85 million in 2004, and it has taken the risk of owning this business for the past 30 years. It is therefore entirely appropriate for the benefits of the sale of Medibank Private to be passed on to Australian taxpayers. They are the ones who have taken the risk, and they should get the benefit.
The sale will allow the government to provide an additional $500 million in medical research grants to the National Health and Medical Research Council and $170 million for the establishment of a research fellowship scheme. This probably would not have been possible without the privatisation of Medibank Private. It will be very interesting to see the benefits used in this way. We were all visited in the gallery today by young children suffering from juvenile diabetes. Part of this $500 million could be used to find a cure. Instead of using taxpayers’ funds to run a health insurance business, it makes more sense to use those funds for medical research.
With all these facts, Labor in their usual stance are opposed to the sale. They continue to talk about how this sale will affect Medibank Private customers, but all along Labor do not give two hoots about the customers, because they really hate private health insurance. Labor’s policy over the past few years has been to oppose the health rebate. They have no plan at all for making private health insurance stronger. Labor’s plan is to oppose everything for the sake of it; it is another of their scare campaigns.
This government has a long-term plan for giving Australians a choice in health insurance. We are strengthening private health insurance generally, including through the proposed sale of Medibank Private. Through this sale the Howard government is actioning a broader strategy for making the Australian economy stronger and is underpinning the prosperity of all Australians. We retain our process to regulate price increases, so why is it necessary to hold on to Medibank Private? We control prices by regulation. Medibank Private will become a private corporation, as are the other 38 competitors, and will compete on a level playing field. I believe that it is very important to support this sale and to support the bill before the House.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 and the proposed sale of Medibank Private. Unfortunately, this debate is not as comprehensive as it should be. I say that because, unfortunately, the government has withheld an important scoping study on the sale. It has refused to publicly disclose the information so that it can be part of the discussion before the House this afternoon.
That is an example of what is a growing and worsening trend in the operation of the Howard government. The record will show across a series of debates in the last 12 to 18 months a growing and disturbing trend in the House, aimed at stifling debate and limiting the value and effectiveness of bills which very seriously will have a potential major impact on the Australian community. It also reflects an arrogance by the government. If you look at the debates that occur in the House, which includes the Main Committee, you find that the opposition is completely dominating debates in the number of members speaking.
Obviously we have a far smaller representation at the moment, but we are trying to make sure that there is proper accountability and scrutiny of legislation. At question time, questions are not answered. It is the same with questions on notice, some of which are requested by constituents who are trying to get details of what the government is doing. All too often now we get answers back which tell us nothing. I can refer to one answer from the Minister for Small Business and Tourism in the last couple of days, which relates to the removal of the executive officer of Tourism Australia. A considerable amount of taxpayers’ money has been paid out, but when I questioned the government on the terms and conditions of the severance package the answer given by the minister was that they are ‘confidential to government’. There is also an agreement in place that prevents the departing head of Tourism Australia from revealing that information.
I find this alarming—I think that taxpayers expect some accountability. We have a proposal here for the sale of a major public asset, Medibank Private, which came into operation in 1976. Medibank Private represents the outcome of taxpayer investment over many years, which has been of benefit to all Australians. Yet we have a government that arrogantly says: ‘The debate’s coming on. We’re not prepared to make available for public scrutiny or the scrutiny of this House the scoping study which goes to the centre of the debate on the sale of Medibank Private.’ I think the Australian community has to understand that, more and more, there is an arrogance by this government which holds in contempt not only the House but also the Australian people. It is time for the Howard government to be held accountable for its actions.
That is why in this debate we have to get the Australian community to focus on what is at stake. Medibank Private is Australia’s largest not-for-profit health insurance provider, and it provides health insurance for some three million Australians. That number represents a considerable proportion of Australians. Represented in that number are many constituents in my electorate of Batman, in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, where over 35 per cent of residents have private health insurance. Many of these Australian families are signed up to Medibank Private, as I have been since 1976, when Medibank Private first came into operation. I declare my membership of Medibank Private, as I should as part of this debate, and I am proud to do so, having seen the demise of Medibank by the election of the Fraser government in December 1975. At least there was the creation of Medibank Private. I automatically joined Medibank Private in support of the need for private health insurance in Australia and a requirement to act in support of the public provider.
Having said that, Medibank Private is important not just to me and my family but to many constituents of Batman and to over three million Australians. It is an institution that many Australians cherish. They understand its importance in providing access to quality health insurance. Interestingly, a recent ACNielsen poll found that 63 per cent of people are against the sale of Medibank Private. Again it is the arrogance of government: ‘We know better than 63 per cent of Australians and the three million Australians who depend on this public provider.’
If legislated, the bill will amend the National Health Act to allow the government to sell its 85 million shares in Medibank Private. The bill will place foreign ownership and Australian identity restrictions on directors and national officers for a period of five years. What will happen at the end of five years? The bill will allow pre-privatisation profits to be redistributed to shareholders, following the privatisation. Obviously that is about the government trying to buy a bit of political mileage in the Australian community, and similarly with the foreign ownership and Australian identity restrictions for directors and national officers for a period of five years.
The changes will mean that the status of the fund goes from not-for-profit to for-profit. It will also ensure that the fund is liable for any compensation claims that arise from the sale, not the Commonwealth. Again this is the government wiping its hands of its responsibilities. It is running away from the potential legal liabilities that might arise from its decisions.
I believe that these are significant amendments and they should not be underestimated. The government has claimed that they are necessary to enable the fund to become more competitive and allow for downward pressure to be placed on premiums. It is also claimed that they will enable the fund to become more efficient by reducing management costs and that they will allow it to pursue new areas of business. The Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Minchin, the architect of this sale, claims that these amendments will remove the government’s conflict of interest in being the main shareholder of the fund and, subsequently, the largest player in the industry—the medical or health industry—whilst also being the industry regulator. They are substantial claims, and one would think that the argument for them is backed by substantial reasoning.
Medibank Private is supported by three million Australians. A recent poll on whether or not Medibank Private should be sold found that 63 per cent of the Australian population surveyed were against the sale. Yet, once again, we are standing here in the House debating a significant bill which will continue the government’s agenda of privatisation.
The Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 represents the sell-off by the government of another publicly funded institution without any details of the rationale behind the decision. Surely a government with a major sale such as this should be required to justify its decision and also to make available for public consideration the details which led to its decision. In the end, when you think about it, it is taxpayers’ money that funded consideration of this sale and the determination of the final policy position.
That leaves the House debating a bill that it can only half debate because the Howard government has failed once again to clarify how its claimed improvements can be achieved. If the government wants to make claims of what will occur as a result of the sale—new business opportunities, lower premiums and other claims—I simply say: put the substance of them on the table.
With that in mind I ask the House: why does the government continue to throw doubt on its own legislation by stifling debate? In essence, what has the Howard government got to hide yet again? Perhaps valid reasons are highlighted in its modelling, which it conducted as part of the scoping study for the sale. We do not know because the government will not make the scoping study available. The truth is that this study and the results that have been publicly disclosed have left the rest of us, especially Medibank Private members and the Australian community at large, wondering what the government is hiding. That is the only conclusion you can reach. What is the government hiding with this scoping study? People are guessing why a government would purposely conceal a vital document that is driving its decision-making processes. Why is this document not being made available for them to consider?
We all know that the Howard government have long had Medibank Private in their sights. The fund has formally been on its asset sale program since 2002, when the first scoping study was commissioned. So it is not new. The government have been about this end objective for a considerable period of time. It is not what they said prior to the 1996 election. Whether it is ‘never, ever’ or ‘not at this particular time’, any undertakings and commitments are a movable feast with the Howard government.
I believe that it would indeed be an error if the sale of Medibank Private could not be justified economically, lawful or morally and its privatisation were just an inane reaction by the Howard government to any government owned business. Is Australia Post next? That is the only conclusion one can reach. Where will the community service obligation go if Australia Post is next on the chopping block? Where will rural, regional and remote Australia be without access to Australia Post’s services? There is not much left, and this government has an agenda about selling all government institutions. I suggest to the House that Australia Post will be next. Maybe we will get an answer to that as a result of this debate.
That takes me to what the Minister for Health and Ageing has said. Recently, he said, ‘The government is instinctively in favour of privatisation.’ Will we sell the private health insurance provider, with a membership of three million Australians, simply because it is and article of faith for the Liberal Party to sell any government business that operates in a competitive environment? You would have to apply the same conclusion to a publicly owned institution such as Australia Post. There is no difference in the mind of this government. Effectively, it means that the government will apply this rule to everything. So you ask yourself: where will it end? Will anything stand in the way of such an approach driven by ideology? It is just like its approach to industrial relations: kick low-paid workers, especially women and young people, in the guts because it suits its ideology. The same applies to the sale of Medibank Private.
I want to refer to the comments of the minister for health again. It would seem that the sale of Medibank Private is not the desire of the Australian people. In August this year, the minister stated that he accepted privatisation was not often popular and that the Australian public might not immediately agree with the Howard government that this sale is in their best interests. He has reaffirmed time and time again that the sale of Medibank Private is firmly on the government’s agenda, although it could not be completed until 2008 due to next year’s election and the remaining sale of Telstra. Yes, another institution is on the chopping block—one that goes to the future capacity of this nation to roll out broadband. But the privatisation hammer—the ideology of the Howard government—prevails yet again.
The bare bones rationale that the government has provided is that it has received financial advice—which will not be shared with anyone—which indicates that the sale makes common sense. If that is the case, make the advice available. In the absence of any further reasoning provided by the government, we can only be left to think that the government is no longer making decisions about how it governs the nation. It is left to the financial advisers—the secret men and women in the back rooms around Parliament House.
This raises an interesting question about the morality of the sale. Much has been made in the media of the legality of the sale, following a Bills Digest from the Parliamentary Library. It suggests that current members have a greater claim in the sale than previously assumed by the government. This came in the form of a claim by members for compensation. I praise the library’s courage in making this advice available. We must always defend the integrity and independence of the library. As far as I am concerned, that is a fundamental requirement of all members of this House, irrespective of their political persuasion. This advice clearly proves why the library is doing a great and valuable service for the Australian community.
I say that because this is an interesting aspect of the bill. It is about its significance, and it is about members’ moral and legal rights. The Australian Medical Association released a media statement following the announcement of the sale stating that it:
... doubts the morality of the sale given that much of the value of Medibank Private is in its financial reserves which were not contributed by the government but rather, extracted from the members in compliance with regulatory requirements. This does not imply any criticism of the regulatory requirements. Reserves are necessary for proper prudential management of private health funds.
I thoroughly agree with that objective statement by the Australian Medical Association. If the government no longer wants to be involved as an operator of Medibank Private, a private health fund, there is a very strong view amongst members that there is a case for considering mutualising Medibank Private and retaining the equity with those who have contributed, namely the members. The three million members are entitled to have their views considered.
In the light of this and similar arguments, the Howard government has now distanced itself from its original viewpoint that reflected the unambiguous conclusions of its legal advice that rejected any suggestion that the members of Medibank Private could be entitled to compensation upon any sale. Alternatively, the government has now committed itself to including some entitlement for existing members in the eventual sale plan. Hence, I disclose my membership of Medibank Private, as I should, as part of this debate. This is an important shift in the government’s position on the issue. It makes me wonder: if this bill could be properly debated, if all the relevant information that has guided the government’s decision-making process were to be laid out in the open, what sort of bill would actually be passed by the House?
Unfortunately that does not appear to be what will happen today. It is a common ploy, for any decision that could be unpopular, to feign consideration over a period of time in an endeavour to allow resentment to settle while also allowing for the market to be quietly tested. That is what is going on at the moment. And this is why, perhaps, we could only half debate the bill today—because the government, if it came clean on its agenda behind the privatisation of Medibank, would be exposed for not acting in the best interests of the Australian public and especially not acting in the best interests of its three million members and the many families that depend on Medibank Private.
Before I conclude, standing alongside my colleagues in opposition to this bill, I would like to raise one more interesting point. The bill will see the status of the fund change from not-for-profit—and apparently quite easily, according to the government’s legal advice, through a change in a provision of Medibank Private’s constitution that will make it a for-profit company. Effectively, this means that an organisation has the potential to establish itself as not-for-profit, register as such and hold itself out to members as an organisation which is subject to the applicable restrictions under the National Health Act. There is the potential for its assets to be managed with priority given to member’s interests, establishing reserves on that basis over a period of years, and then, without reference to members, for the organisation to unilaterally change its status and freely distribute its reserves as profits. That is an interesting legal conundrum. Is this the precedent that we want for the future of the legal system in Australia, in passing this bill? The implications of the legislation are serious.
A privatised Medibank Private would mean that a much greater proportion of the sector would suddenly, overnight, be for-profit and would mean that the sector would be much more commercially orientated. This could have the disastrous effect of forcing the not-for-profits to become more commercially driven in order to compete. This, in turn, could increase the pressure on the government for more commercially orientated and less community orientated regulatory reform. Once again, these are serious issues associated with the bill that need to be debated openly and thoroughly.
The sale of Medibank Private, as we appreciate on this side, for ideological reasons on the other side, has been coming for about four years—if not more, secretly. Why does it therefore have to be pushed through the House of Representatives without any clear rationale? There is no good reason for that approach to legislative change in Australia. The lack of reasoning that has stifled debate casts doubt on the merits of the bill and, for that reason, the opposition is justified in opposing this bill.
I will also say, in conclusion, that the time has come for the Howard government to have a look at its operation in the House. We are the representatives of the Australian people, who are supposed to properly consider legislation before the House and seek accountability. This is a prime example of the Howard government’s arrogance. A scoping study was prepared at expense to the Australian taxpayer, yet it is locked up in the cabinet vault. The Australian taxpayers own that scoping study. I call upon the Howard government to make that scoping study available to enable a proper debate. If it does not, one can only conclude that this is about secrecy and arrogance in government and a clear decision yet again by the Howard government to hold the Australian public at large in contempt and to treat the three million Australians who are members of Medibank Private with utter contempt. That is the only conclusion one can reach—but, then again, that is part and parcel of the nature of the Howard government in 2006. And that is why the Australian community is, more and more, growing sick and tired of its arrogance and contempt and the fact that it is driven by one thing: not good policy, but a mere requirement to occupy the Treasury benches so as to distribute the perks of government to its mates. The opposition is correct. The sale of Medibank Private is wrong. (Time expired)
What a wonderful transformation. Here we have the Labor Party, which in the past has never really cared about private health insurance, now suddenly profoundly concerned about the future of Medibank Private. The party that was very happy, when it was in government, to see the demise of private health insurance is now supposedly its greatest champion. In the 13 years that Labor was in office, we saw a steady decline in the membership of private health insurance. Here we have again the opposition wanting to shut down the debate on the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006.
Excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The member for Macquarie has the call.
I am seeking the call.
The member for Macquarie has the call.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So we had a steady decline during those years of the Labor government, and no effort at all to try to protect—
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: could I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Is it a point of order, or are you drawing my attention to the state of the House?
I am drawing your attention to the state of the House.
(Quorum formed)
Before the Labor Party sought to stop me exercising my democratic right in here, I was wondering about the reason for the sudden conversion of those opposite. The party that for 13 years were opposed to private health insurance now are suddenly supposedly its greatest champion. They did nothing to stop that steady decline in numbers that would have pushed private health insurance membership to below the critical mass of where it was sustainable. Now, supposedly, they are its greatest champion.
This is the party that in November 1998 voted against the government’s legislation to allow a 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance. This is the party that voted against the government’s measures to make private health insurance more affordable and more widely available in this community. Now suddenly it is its greatest champion! Suddenly it wants to be the defender and the protector of private health insurance! This is the party that had no time for private health insurance when in government and now supposedly wants to protect it. Let us just look, for instance, at what was said by the former Leader of the Opposition in the recently published The Latham Diaries. The former member for Werriwa said:
We have worked out a way of dealing with the despised private health insurance rebate.
The ‘despised private health insurance rebate’.
We need to kill it slowly ... dismantling it slice by slice.
This is from the former leader of the party that now supposedly is the protector and defender of private health insurance. Again I quote from the former Leader of the Opposition referring to the current Leader of the Opposition:
At different times Beazley has boasted to Caucus that it—
the private health insurance rebate—
will go.
This is the party that now wants to be seen as the defender of private health insurance. It is either a dramatic and wonderful conversion or rank hypocrisy.
Let us look at Labor’s broader record on privatisation. Again, it is not what they say but what they do. What was Labor’s record on privatisation when they were in office? They sold the Commonwealth Bank, sold Qantas, sold Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, sold Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, sold Aerospace Technologies and sold the Moomba-Sydney Pipeline. On and on the list goes. They even had clear plans to sell Telstra.
There is no difference between the opposition and the government in the acknowledgement of the benefits of private ownership of government commercial enterprises. We had the member for Brand in 1995, when trying to justify the spate of asset sales of the former government, out there promoting the reasons for private ownership of these commercial enterprises, saying how it would increase their efficiency and how there was no need for the government to own those enterprises. Now suddenly they are opposed to these privatisations.
The approach of the former government and the approach of this government in terms of acknowledging the efficiency of private ownership in these corporations are very similar. But there are two marked differences in the approaches to asset sales or privatisations of the Labor Party and of the coalition. The first difference is that the coalition is clearly up-front in saying what it intends to do. We have said in the past that we would be selling Medibank Private and we have said in the past that we would be privatising Telstra. On the other side, not once in their 13 years did the Hawke or Keating governments commit before an election to what they had intended to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker, could I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Quorum required. Ring the bells. But in calling for the quorum I advise the honourable member for Shortland to study House of Representatives Practice page 269 and some interesting historical rulings made in 1934 and 1935.
(Quorum formed)
Before I continue I would just like to recount to the House what one of my colleagues has just said. This has been highly embarrassing for him; he has had a group of highly paid professional and business people in his office this afternoon who were unable to continue the business that they came to Canberra, at their own great personal expense, to conduct because of the antics of the other side. It is a disgrace that the Labor Party would treat with contempt members of the public who are here to do their business and want to see parliament doing its business instead of playing these puerile, infantile games. It is a disgrace and I hope the public is aware of this.
I return to what I was saying. The two differences between the Labor Party and the government in privatising commercial government business are not a realisation or an acknowledgment of the greater efficiency of private ownership but simply a result of two facts. The first is that at least the coalition is up-front. For a long time we have made very clear our policy of privatisation. In the 13 years before the spate of commercialisation, private asset sales, of the other side, not once did the Hawke-Keating government tell voters that that was what they had planned. In fact, they did quite the contrary. In the outrageous case of the sale of the Commonwealth Bank by the then Labor government, in their prospectus, in an official public document, in September 2003 the Labor government said, ‘We have no intention of reducing our ownership to less than 50.1 cent.’ This was an official government document that stated their position, and yet what happened? One year later that public commitment was denied and they sold the other half. Just one year later, we had the member for Brand publicly trying to justify what one year earlier they had denied they would do.
The second difference between the approach of the Labor Party and that of the coalition when it comes to privatisation is the way in which the proceeds are used. Just think of what happened with that massive spate of privatisations under the last few years of the Hawke-Keating government. Did that money go to pay off debt? Did that money go to building infrastructure? No, that money was flushed down the drain with a whole lot of other money in irresponsible, profligate recurrent expenditure. It was expenditure that, in addition to those massive asset sales, ran up another $70 billion worth of deficits in just five years. By contrast—and the contrast could not be clearer—with this government the proceeds of any asset sales have gone towards retiring the debt left by Labor and now go into the Future Fund to help accommodate the costs associated with an ageing population. In fact, of this sale of Medibank Private, $670 million has been committed for medical research. The hypocrisy of those on the other side could not be more glaring.
I would like to turn briefly now to a couple of the specifics of this sale. This sale of Medibank Private will add—contrary to the assertions from the other side—to competition in the private health insurance industry. It will—and this has been commercial advice to the government—increase their ability to diversify and add pressure to other private health insurance providers. There are 38 private companies already offering private health insurance and this will add to the competition between those. The CEO of NIB health insurance, Mr Mark Fitzgibbon—who should know: he is in this business—said this:
The pressure on premiums will be reduced if Medibank goes private. We expect much more aggressive competition from a privately owned Medibank.
This is someone in the industry, a CEO of a major health insurance provider, acknowledging that this competition will force premiums down.
While I am on premiums, it is interesting to make this point. We hear from the other side that we have had these terrible rises in private health insurance premiums under the Howard government.
We have.
There might have been rises but look at the facts. The rises for the last 10 years under this government have averaged 5.5 per cent per annum. What did they average in the previous 10 years? For the 10 years under the Labor government, the rises in private health insurance premiums averaged 11 per cent per annum. That is double what they have been under this government. If you want to look at the facts on who has done the best job in keeping premiums down, you will see that it has been the coalition government. There is no reason for the government to own one of 39 private health insurance companies. The fact is that ultimately the final say for premium rises, the final approval, has to come from the government on the report of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council, so it is a nonsense for the other side to say that this privatisation will force premiums up.
The fact is that there is no reason for the government to have money tied up in a private health insurance company, one of 39, when that money could better be spent on medical research and on providing for our ageing population. The fact is that, in their more candid moments, Labor know this. It is just sad that, yet again, populism forces them into the role of opposition for opposition’s sake.
In the course of my contribution I hope to be able to answer some of the assertions made by the member for Macquarie. I thought the debate was supposed to be about the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 rather than the expansive historical excursion that we were taken on by the Chief Government Whip. I want to begin by saying that I oppose the bill, and I do so for a number of reasons. I want to take issue with the Chief Government Whip when he asks: why should the government have its money tied up in a health fund? I think that is a very important issue and one that I do not think has been resolved, as to who owns the assets of Medibank Private. Is it the members who have contributed to it over a substantial period of time, and what role does the government have over those assets? I will come to that a bit later.
The bill that we have before us is really one that gives effect to the intention of the government to sell Medibank Private. They have now decided to do so by a share float. But, of course, they are not going to do it before the federal election. They are running scared because of popular sentiment about this issue and they are leaving the decision until after the election. Interestingly enough, as the explanatory memorandum to this bill makes very clear, for the government to achieve its sale objectives, it is necessary for Medibank Private, which is currently conducted on a not-for-profit basis, to convert so that it can be conducted on a for-profit basis. That has really significant implications for the policyholders in Medibank Private, and the change to a for-profit basis will have an impact on other health funds in the sector. The explanatory memorandum to the bill goes on to state:
When Medibank Private Limited becomes a “for profit” company, it will be able to pay dividends or return capital to its shareholders. This includes using the surpluses already built up in the Medibank Private Fund.
It is interesting that 30 years ago the Fraser government established Medibank Private, arguing then that a government owned company would introduce greater competition in private health insurance and strengthen the capacity of the government to reform and regulate that industry. Yet, 30 years later, the Howard government proposes to sell it. The decision to sell it is not made on any rational or convincing grounds, and the community understands that well. Senator Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration, had this to say:
We’re not selling this for the money. We think it’ll be good for the industry and good for consumers of private health insurance.
We beg to differ. In the argument I will put in my contribution, I will show why we beg to differ. First of all, we know that Medibank Private is Australia’s largest health fund. It is a national fund and it currently provides cover for about three million of our fellow Australians. You have to ask: where is the morality in the government selling a fund whose assets have been built up by member contributions? Its assets in the 2005 annual report are listed as being up to $653 million. As the President of the AMA made clear recently—and I would have thought that he was well versed in this industry:
... much of the value of Medibank Private is in its financial reserves—
$653 million—
which were not contributed by the government but rather, extracted from the members in compliance with regulatory requirements.
Medibank Private members have played a huge part in building up the value of this fund and, in my view, no share offer deal—whatever that might be; whatever arrangement the government finally comes to—can properly compensate members for selling out from under them the fund that they have built over the last 30 years.
This issue is a significant one in the debate. It is about the rights of existing members of Medibank Private. One of the conclusions that obviously the government does not like was that reached in a research brief prepared by our independent Parliamentary Library. It is arguable that members have the right to the benefit of the existing surplus assets of the fund and that a sale of Medibank Private, if it were adversely going to affect those rights, could in fact give rise to a claim against the Commonwealth for compensation. The AMA, again, for example, has argued:
If the Government no longer wishes to be involved as an operator of a private health fund, there is a strong case for mutualising Medibank Private and retaining the equity with those who have contributed to it, namely the members.
Obviously, the government did not like this advice or conclusion from an independent source, so they rushed off to lawyers at the top end of town, to one of their favoured legal firms, Blake Dawson Waldron. They, of course, provided the advice that the government wanted. I must say that the issue of the rights of members, in my view and in the view of our shadow minister, remains a very live one in this debate.
It must be a live one because the government has made some concessions. It is now talking about some entitlements for existing members in the eventual sale plan. This could be in the form of a special entitlement to or discount on shares. But I repeat my contention that no share offer deal can properly compensate members for selling out from under them the fund that they have built in the last 30 years.
The not-for-profit health insurer, as it operates today, recently announced its results for the last financial year. Its profit has increased 53 per cent to a healthy $200 million. This has happened at the same time as its premiums rose by nearly six per cent on average. So it seems to me that the government has had this agenda in mind for quite some time and that it has been fattening up Medibank Private just like it did to Telstra in the lead-up to its privatisation and sale.
Let us look at the reasons, or the lack of reasons, that the government has given to explain the sale of Medibank Private. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill argues—and I find this bizarre—that there is no sound policy reason for the Commonwealth to continue to own a health insurance business. But, at the same time, it provides no rational or compelling argument for its sale. In my view, there are much weightier arguments for the fund to remain as it is. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, at least told the truth in justification of the sale. He said:
... the Government obviously is instinctively in favour of privatisation.
So, really, it is an ideological obsession on the part of this government rather than any good argument on either economic or public interest grounds for its sale. Our Prime Minister has never made any secret of his belief that government has no business running commercial enterprises, even—ironically, on this occasion—one founded by a former Liberal government. The Prime Minister made clear his views as long ago as 1988 in a speech when he said:
... the fatal flaw in public interest is that you cannot operate a quasi-commercial undertaking in a public service environment.
Back in April this year, the government stated its intention to introduce legislation in this year’s budget for the sale of Medibank Private. The Minister for Finance and Administration said:
... we would hope to complete a sale in financial year 2006/07.
He then said:
We have not made a decision yet on the method of sale. Broadly speaking, the options to us are a trade sale or a public offering.
I think that now, because of that ongoing debate about who actually owns the assets, concessions will be made to the policyholders, and no doubt we will see some favourable share arrangement leading up to the floating of Medibank Private. But there is no doubt that public opinion is strongly against the sale of Medibank Private, just as it was strongly against the sale of Telstra. It was particularly so in seats like the one Deputy Speaker Scott represents. So, fearful of the political backlash before the election, the legislation is being introduced but the sale is not going to happen until some time in 2008.
If you do not believe my argument about the lack of compelling reasons for the sale of Medibank Private, let me quote to you from a column written by Terry McCrann, a noted economist who is not often on the side of Labor on issues, but I thought his advice and reasoning was very cogent. He said:
The argument for its sale is pretty thin. Yes, like Telstra it is operating in a field of private sector competitors.
But it is a field absolutely controlled by government policy, and intricately interwoven with both public health in the broad and Medicare itself in the particular.
Unlike Telstra, it’s hardly worth the money so far as the federal budget is concerned. The $2 billion could easily disappear in another year or two in Iraq or a ‘parameter’ variation to the budget numbers.
There’s also a particular problem with a float over a trade sale. That would mean a company listed on the stock exchange which would have to make a profit for shareholders.
In contrast the entire private health insurance sector is today at least nominally non-profit.
So what does the introduction of a profit-based player in the private health insurance sector mean?
They all switch to profit-making? Or Medibank Privatised can’t compete?
We know that Medibank Private has always been a not-for-profit fund. But, on sale, as the explanatory memorandum makes out so clearly, it will inevitably have the profit motive as its primary consideration. In my simple view, this can lead only to one conclusion: if you have to satisfy the shareholders, then higher premiums for Australian families will follow as surely as night follows day. As I said earlier, given that Medibank Private is currently Australia’s biggest health insurer, once it becomes a for-profit company, that will obviously have implications for the rest of the sector. If the market leaders’ premiums are going to rise, it will not be too long before the others follow. Quite frankly, this is really bad news for the 36 per cent of my community that I represent in this parliament covered by private health insurance.
The claim made by Senator Minchin and the government that premiums will not increase as a result of this sale is a statement that lacks any credibility and any logic. It is not just disputed by reputable economic commentators but by the AMA as well, whose president said the obvious:
....the sale of Medibank Private would drive up premiums as the new owner sought to maximise returns to shareholders.
We all know the government has form on promises about premiums that are never met. I can remember in 2001, when I was newly elected to this parliament, that we were told that all the government’s policies would put downward pressure on premiums. Since I have been elected, private health insurance premiums have risen by 40 per cent—so much for downward pressure on premiums! That can only get worse if it is privatised and becomes a for-profit company.
We all know the current Minister for Health and Ageing’s predisposition to rubber stamp premium increase requests from the private health funds. He confirmed this recently in his own words when he said:
The standard I have adopted since becoming the Minister is that I will normally approve increases as long as I am confident on expert advice that they are justified by the needs of the funds ...
So why should people in the community put any store on promises made by this government about health insurance premiums, when they know the outcomes have been so different from the promises? These outcomes have led me on many occasions to raise concerns on behalf of the people I represent about the increase in costs of private health insurance.
Since 2001 the overall increase in premiums has been an astounding 40 per cent and, for some funds, the increases have been much higher. The member for Macquarie, in his historical dissertation, seems to miss this point completely. Let me give you one example. Last year constituents reported to me that the NIB fund raised premiums on average by 17.3 per cent at a time when the government was publicly claiming that the average increase in the sector was just under eight per cent. They can say that the average is eight per cent, but when you disaggregate those figures you can see that one fund, on average, at the different levels of coverage, had a 17.3 per cent increase. I pursued these exorbitant increases on behalf of the people I represent with the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, but no redress was offered.
With increases in gap fees and increases in premiums, is it any wonder that many of my constituents tell me they are not receiving value for money from their fund? They feel they are paying more but getting less. I cannot understand for the life of me why the minister cannot force this sector, which is subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of $3 billion and more a year, to come up with a product that covers all your costs when you use a private hospital.
Not only are people slugged by increasing premium costs, but the gap continues to rise and people are asking, ‘Well, what’s the value in it?’ Regrettably, many people that I represent—pensioners and low-income people—will continue to be forced out of private health coverage. And this will be even more the case when Medibank Private is sold. These annual increases well above the rate of inflation—sometimes astronomically above—are a breach of government commitments and they are putting enormous pressure on household budgets. And, as I said earlier, the worst is yet to come.
I really do not see that the sale of Medibank Private does anything substantial to address the very critical issues that this nation faces in respect of health reform and health needs in our community. We need to do a lot more to ensure that private health insurance is affordable and provides real value for money. It is not good enough for this minister and the government—which likes to paint itself as the great friend of the private health sector—to ignore the big macro issues such as the cost of medical technologies and the future demand that will come with an ageing population. Those issues, let alone the sustainability of private insurers, seem to me to be the key issues for the entire health sector, and I do not see how the sale of Medibank Private would add anything constructive to addressing the long-term needs that we all know are so desperately required out there in the community.
We know that private health funds are paying out more in benefits, but at the same time out-of-pocket costs, the gap and other non-insured health costs are growing and placing an increasing burden on all health consumers. This is also occurring for the non-insured as the public sector is also moving costs onto individuals or at least not fully meeting new costs as they arise.
I think it would have added much more substance to the debate about long-term reform in the sector if the minister had made that the key issue rather than trying to pretend that there is some value to the Australian consumer and to the industry through the sale of Medibank Private.
I want to conclude by saying that community sentiment and expert opinion is strongly against the sale. This is the reason the sale has been deferred to 2008. It is not because of the Telstra float but because the Prime Minister and the minister understand the way people feel about this proposed sale. A recent Herald/ACNielsen poll found 63 per cent of voters opposed the sale and only 17 per cent supported it. And even among the government’s supporters, almost half in this survey opposed the sale.
The government has put off the sale until after the next election in the hope that in a year’s time people will have forgotten about the issue. Well, the community must know—and we will make sure they know—that if the Howard government wins the next election, Medibank Private will be sold. And they should know that the sale of Medibank Private will push up premiums. That is the inevitable consequence of selling Medibank Private and making it a for-profit organisation. If it is for-profit, its primary consideration is profits and accountability to the shareholders. So the sale will push up premiums and, very importantly—and the community needs to understand this—the premiums will go up not just for current members of Medibank Private but for all private health insurance members. Once the dominant player in the market sets the pace then inevitably the others will follow.
I know that the government, for political reasons, is deferring this sale, but I think we ought to say on the record that it is the intention of the Labor Party to make the community well aware of the implications of this sale. Certainly, I intend to be writing and communicating with the roughly 36 per cent of electors I represent who are currently covered by private health insurance, warning them of the serious consequences for them, their families and their household budgets if the Howard government is re-elected with its clear commitment to the sale of Medibank Private.
I would firstly like to associate myself with the comments made by the member for Throsby. Like her, I will be communicating with those private health insurance holders within the Shortland electorate, because I believe this is one issue on which the government has totally misread the feelings of the community.
The Howard government is a government comprised of ideologues fixated on changing the face of Australia. These ideologues seek to obliterate any body, institution, policy or societal direction that does not coincide with their jaundiced view of the world. It is a government driven by philosophy—a philosophy that does not necessarily align itself with the common good or, put another way, does not necessarily align itself with what is best for Australia—Australian families and Australians as a whole. In this case, the government’s ideological commitment to the great god privatisation has impacted on its ability to clinically assess whether privatising Medibank Private will deliver the best to Australians.
On many occasions when I meet with people and address public groups, people ask me about the difference between the government and us. I think this piece of legislation shows very distinctly the difference between the government and the opposition. We on this side of the House are committed to delivering the best outcome to the Australian people, and we do not believe that by selling off public assets—in this case Medibank Private—we would deliver that to the Australian people.
At the start of my contribution to this debate I think I should declare an interest, as I am a member of Medibank Private. As a member, I am horrified that the private health insurance company that I have chosen to take out my private health insurance with is to be sold. The reason I decided I would take out private health insurance coverage with Medibank Private was purely and simply that it was publicly owned. I believe that the sale of Medibank Private will make me reconsider my decision to remain a member of that private health insurance fund.
I ask the question: will the sale of Medibank Private benefit people in Australia? The answer is no. The government says, ‘Yes, it will, because it will lead to greater competition.’ It uses the hoary old argument that the regulator cannot be the owner and operator of an enterprise. It argues that it will be much more efficient if it is privately owned. We on this side of the House argue that, no, it will not deliver better outcomes—what it will deliver is higher premiums. Currently the excess in Medibank Private is put back into the fund and delivered as services to the members. In the future that profit will go to the shareholders. The purpose of Medibank Private will be to make a profit and to deliver that profit to its shareholders. That changes the whole focus and the whole modus operandi of Medibank Private.
I have already mentioned that I believe the sale of Medibank Private will lead to increased premiums, and one of the biggest complaints that constituents have about private health insurance is the gap between what they pay and what they receive back from their private health insurance fund. I can only see this increasing with the sale of Medibank Private. The sale of Medibank Private will lead to a change in the goals of Medibank Private. No longer will it have a goal of providing services and benefits to members; rather, as I have already mentioned, in the future it will have the goal of providing profit to its shareholders. I should say very distinctly now that I am opposed to the sale of Medibank Private, just in case the members in the House have not picked that up. I can see no logical reason for the sale of Medibank Private. I do not believe it is going to deliver a better outcome to those people in Australia who hold private health insurance. Rather, I think that it is going to lead to escalating costs and poorer service.
The Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 changes the way that Medibank Private currently operates. The bill makes necessary changes to the National Health Act and other amendments to allow the government to sell its share in Medibank Private. The bill brings to light a number of issues which I think add to the controversy of the sale. It is limiting foreign ownership, adding an Australian entity rule for directors and limiting the location of the head office for five years. Five years passes in a blink, and my question is: what happens after five years? The bill is excluding National Health Act provisions which will allow the change of Medibank Private’s not-for-profit status to be a disallowable instrument.
The bill is also excluding National Health Act provisions which would allow the Minister for Health and Ageing to examine the impact of the change on the status of members and premiums and disallow the change on public interest grounds. I have already indicated how important the public interest is and that governments must make decisions based on the public interest. The bill will allow current surpluses to be redistributed successfully to IPO subscribers but, at the same time, it includes compensation provisions for which funds would be liable in the event that legal action were taken.
That brings me to the Blake Dawson Waldron advice that the government has received. I have to say that I have serious reservations about that advice. The advice that was received was that the membership of the Medibank Private fund entails primarily a contractual relationship that can be terminated by Medibank Private with just two months notice. It also said that members had no enforceable rights to benefit from the general assets of the fund and that Medibank Private Ltd is the beneficial as well as the legal owner of the fund.
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the paper that I am referring to at the moment, which was prepared by the Parliamentary Library. It had input from the legal section as well as the social policy section, so it is quite an in-depth paper which goes across all aspects of this sale. It is not at all supportive of the sale. It disagrees with or at least raises serious concerns about the advice that was given by Blake Dawson Waldron. In doing that, it goes to the rules that surround private health insurance and the fact that before their membership is terminated a member must be given two months notice—that is, when they are behind with their premiums. A person has a right to be a member of the fund. It is not the fund that terminates membership; rather, it is a member’s choice.
This paper also highlights the fact that community rating is the underlying principle of private health insurance—and the government is seeking to ignore that. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill states:
Community rating prohibits RHBOs [registered health benefits organisations] from discriminating against contributors in relation to access to private health insurance and the use of private health insurance products …
I would argue that this flies in the face of the advice the government is relying on—and rightly so—because community rating does underpin private health insurance in this country. Members are currently provided with the right of continuity of membership through the principle of community rating. That is something that we on this side are very committed to and that, I would have thought, all members of this House are committed to. It ensures that private health insurance operates in the way it does in this country and that people cannot be discriminated against because of some illness they have had. If that were to happen, it would undermine the whole system.
The government need to look at this provision very carefully. They need to be very careful when accepting the Blake Dawson Waldron advice. I think they should examine the Bills Digest prepared by the Parliamentary Library, which has taken into account all aspects of this issue. It is also about the not-for-profit status of registered health funds—and this is a not-for-profit fund. It is interesting that the whole concept of the way in which Medibank Private operates will change if it is changed into a for-profit health fund. Medibank Private is currently a not-for-profit fund. I believe—and I know that members on this side of the House are quite convinced of this—that members of the fund would be in a position to take action.
I think the government are also quite wary of that, because they have put into the bill a section to cover them for this—the section that deals with the change in the status of the fund to a for-profit fund. The bill seeks to exclude the requirement that this change in registration would impact on that. So I think that even the government are very mindful that members could have the right to take action against Medibank Private. The government do not want to be caught with this, so they are shifting it onto Medibank Private and, possibly, future shareholders.
The moral perspective, rather than the legal perspective, is also very important here. I would like to quickly turn to what the AMA have to say on this. They say:
The AMA … doubts the morality of the sale, given that much of the value of Medibank Private is in its financial reserves, which were not contributed to by the government but, rather, extracted from the members in compliance with regulatory requirements.
The AMA are saying, in other words, that the members of Medibank Private own it—they have contributed to its financial status—and, as such, there is a real problem with selling it. They also make the point that, if the government no longer wishes to be involved, there is a strong case for mutualising Medibank Private.
I thought it might be useful for the House to note that a number of groups are opposed to the sale of Medibank Private, including the AMA, the Doctors Reform Society, the Community and Public Sector Union, the Health Services Union and, of course, the Save Medicare Alliance, which includes Professor John Deeble, who was one of the founders of the original Medibank, and Ray Williams, former general manager of Medibank Private. The Australian Consumers Association has also raised concerns about the impact of the sale and, of course, we on this side of the House are very concerned about the proposed sale.
I think the conflict of interest argument, in which the government argues that you cannot be both the regulator and the operator, is a furphy. The government has, over the years, been both the regulator and the operator, and that has not created any conflict of interest. With regard to the injection of funds: in 1976, at the commencement of the fund, there was an injection of $10 million, and that was in a very different form from the form it is in now; in 1978 there was an establishment grant of $11 million, but that has been repaid; and, in recent times, there has been an injection of funds. This government throws up furphies all the time. It never really explains or identifies how there is a conflict of interest.
The other point that has been raised is that this sale would make Medibank Private more efficient because it would lead to lower management costs. I would argue that it would make it less efficient because the whole purpose of its activities would be to meet and satisfy the needs and desires of its shareholders. To do this, I think that along the way efficiencies would be lost, and, of course, there would be less competition. I know that Queensland members of this parliament have been quite concerned about the sale of Medibank Private. They are aware of the concentration of ownership of private health insurance in Queensland, with MBF and Medibank Private having almost a total share of the market. To some extent I think that is why the government has decided to sell Medibank Private in the way it has—but that applies only for five years, and in five years time that concentration can be further exacerbated.
The government’s decision to sell Medibank Private is a flawed decision. It will not deliver better outcomes to members of Medibank Private. It will not deliver better outcomes to Australians, including families, who have private health insurance. Rather it will lead to increased costs and potentially less competition. It is a decision based purely and simply on ideology. The Howard government is a slave to privatisation but not such a slave that it is prepared to sell Medibank Private prior to the next election, because the Howard government knows that the Australian people do not support this sale. In typical Howard government style, it will deliver the bad news and the bad policies after an election and hope the Australian people will forget prior to the next election.
The Australian people have woken up to the Howard government. They know that the Howard government says one thing before an election and does something different after an election. I am totally opposed to the sale of Medibank Private, for the reasons I have outlined. One reason above all others is that it is contrary to the interests of the Australian people. (Time expired)
This government loves delivering choices.
Hear, hear!
Along with a number of choices—I am glad the minister at the table is joining in—we have seen a number of so-called reforms that this government plans to bring in, but certainly so far the choices have not been on subjects confronting the Australian public. At the next election voters will have a whole range of choices when they come to the ballot box. They will get a choice between the government’s extreme industrial relations policy—which the government packaged as reform—and a system based on fairness and decency, which will be taken to the election by the Australian Labor Party. They will also have a choice between the government and the opposition on Australia’s involvement in Iraq. Again, this week has seen much debate on that matter played out in this parliament and in the country’s newspapers. That will be a very clear choice for the Australian public when they go to the ballot boxes some time late next year.
More to the point, they will have a choice between the vastly different approaches to combating things such as climate change and they will have a choice between the proposals of this government and those of the opposition in relation to the sale of Medibank Private. Let me make it very clear that I and all members of the Labor Party stand quite opposed to the sale of Medibank Private. Labor is not convinced by the government’s argument as to the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 that the sale of Medibank Private is good for competition, that it will be good for existing Medibank Private members or, for that matter, that it will be good for future customers of Medibank Private. That is why Labor is pledging to keep Medibank Private in government hands at next year’s election. Unlike the government, Labor is in touch with the views of the Australian public on this matter.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and no doubt every member of this chamber are aware, at this stage polling shows that the punters out there do not support the sale of Medibank Private. They do not believe the government when it says that people are going to be better off and they certainly do not believe the government when it says that the privatisation of Medibank will result in downward pressures on premiums.
Possibly the most interesting aspect of this debate is the heated dispute that has emerged over the rights of existing Medibank Private members. I am sure the government is aware that Medibank Private members have played a huge part in building the value of Medibank Private. It is quite true that the government injected $85 million into Medibank Private in May 2004, but the main value of Medibank Private is derived from the reserves contributed by members over a significant period of years. The members have assisted with the dramatic turnaround of Medibank Private as a company: losses of $175.5 million four years ago turned into an operating profit of $220 million last year, which obviously makes it very attractive to equity investors at the moment.
Of course the business side of the equation is one thing, but what has received considerable attention is the legal aspects of the sale. Following the announcement that the government intended to put Medibank Private up for sale, there has been much debate about who actually owns it. I would have thought that this would have been a first-order question—that, when you are going to contemplate disposal of an asset, you should actually first make sure that you are the person who has proprietary interest over that asset. It is a reasonably straightforward proposition: any seller has to make sure that they own a thing before they go out and sell it, otherwise a lot of my former clients in the constabulary might take an interest. And the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, who is at the table, might have a view about people selling things that they did not quite own.
It seems that the government might be looking to bypass this basic rule when it comes to Medibank Private. Once this matter came on for public debate, the Parliamentary Library commissioned a research paper. It took it upon itself, under its independent charter, to investigate what rights the members of Medibank Private had in this fund. One conclusion reported in its brief was that members may have the right to the surplus assets of this fund. That is not an insignificant conclusion by this independent body. According to the library, the sale could give rise to a claim against the Commonwealth.
This put the government in a bit of a tailspin, and it rushed out and did what it normally does in these sorts of circumstances. You might recall that in the industrial relations debate the first thing that the minister did was to run out and engage a plethora of legal advisers from the private sector to play a role in helping formulate the government’s position on Work Choices. But what the government did on this occasion was to go and get separate advice—in the hope, I suppose, that it would be advice which would give it something to hang its hat on when it came down to the issue of ownership.
The advice that it obtained was from Blake Dawson Waldron. It was tabled by the Minister for Finance and Administration in early September. And that advice indicated that the Commonwealth was not liable to pay compensation. No doubt it was a bit of reprieve for the minister to receive that advice.
Well, which is it? Will we be liable or will we not? The question is yet to be answered in any decisive way. When the library considered the advice from Blake’s—and, again, this is on record—it considered that advice, for various reasons that it articulated, to be wrong. It pointed out a range of problems with the advice and hence it seriously questioned its conclusions.
The $653 million question, when it comes to the sale of Medibank Private, is: who actually owns it? The government claims that it does, and it has produced this legal advice to back up its assertion. The Parliamentary Library seriously doubts the conclusions contained in that advice. So most of us are really left none the wiser on that fundamental question of who actually owns Medibank Private.
Despite the fact that the Commonwealth is sticking to the advice offered by its hired guns in this matter, it has hedged its bets. It has inserted a provision in this bill that seeks to remove the Commonwealth from any compensation claim that may arise as a result of this sale. It has also indicated that it intends to recognise existing members, through an entitlement as part of the public offer structure. So, while the government on one hand is sure that it has the right and is sure that it actually owns Medibank Private, it still seems to feel the need to hedge its bets against any adverse findings of ownership by removing itself from any liability for compensation and it has sought to placate the existing members through a yet to be detailed entitlement in the public offer.
If the government is willing to go to all those lengths to make sure that it is far removed from any possible future legal action taken by any one of the members of Medibank Private, one can only conclude that the government has little confidence in the legal advice it has received from its solicitors in this regard. If the government does not have confidence in its legal advice on this occasion, if it is nervous about the sale, if it needs to go to these lengths—of putting all these hedging positions into this bill to protect itself into the future—then this sale should be stopped, and it should be stopped now, because the fundamental proposition as to who owns it is yet to be determined. It is a simple proposition: if you are not sure that you—as the minister—are the person who actually owns the residual assets in this organisation, then you should not attempt to sell it.
The biggest concern for most people is the impact that this sale will have on industry competition and on premiums. There is a very deep concern among the public—as was the case with the sale of Telstra and other privatisations—that this will be nothing more than another trip down the ideological highway, a trip which, quite frankly, the majority of Australians do not want to take. As a recent ACNielsen poll on the privatisation of Medibank found, nearly two in three respondents wanted the insurer to remain in public hands. Only 17 per cent—that is, less than one in five—actually supported the sale of Medibank Private. This is a pretty significant finding, although, as we have seen with this government pursuing its various ideological agendas, nothing is going to be allowed to stand in its way: not public disquiet, not expert objection—nothing.
The only thing in the past that has stopped this government’s agenda when it comes to privatisation—and I should not have said there was nothing, because there was something—has been Alan Jones. You may recall that when it came to the sale of Snowy Hydro it was the objections of Alan Jones, and the opportunity that the government saw to score points against the Victorian and New South Wales governments, that stopped the privatisation objectives of the Howard government. On this occasion, despite the fact that Alan Jones has labelled the sale of Medibank as immoral, the government does not seem prepared to back down. So, given that the Commonwealth will not back down, what are the impacts going to be?
Medibank Private has about three million members and accounts for about 30 per cent of the private health insurance market in Australia. It has to be considered the most significant player in that market. The nearest insurer in terms of market share is MBF, which accounts for nearly 20 per cent of the market. Given the size and relative market strength of Medibank, serious consideration has to be given to the impact on the market and on competition of its change from being a not-for-profit organisation to one which is profit focused. Labor has a real and serious concern that privatisation is going to result in higher premiums, lower service levels or limits on claims—or, in the worst possible scenario, all of the above.
While the Minister for Finance and Administration continues to stick by the line that the privatisation will place downward pressure on premiums, no-one else seems to be convinced and no-one else whom I have heard speak has rushed out to agree with him on this. No-one who has spoken in this debate, from various philosophical positions, has rushed to speak in support of the minister in his claim that this is going to lead to downward pressure on health insurance premiums. Even the Minister for Health and Ageing, who has been responsible for increase after increase in private health insurance premiums, has conceded that following the sale of Medibank Private premiums are bound to rise.
The minister for health—a man who has approved health insurance increases—when asked recently about the period post Medibank privatisation, said that he would have no hesitation in approving higher premiums. That really comes as no surprise, as the minister for health has hardly been a picture of self-control when it has come to approving premium increases in the past. Why would he exercise some self-control at this stage when it comes to increases in health insurance premiums? So the official line is that there will be downward pressure on premiums, while the health minister believes the exact opposite. With such divergent views within the government, it is probably best that people consider the views of others to gain some insight as to what might happen.
The Age recently reported the comments of an investment banker as follows:
One investment banker stressed that whoever won control of the asset would be planning to extract value using some combination of cutting costs, limiting claims and raising premiums. The owner would hope to make its money in two or three years, the banker said. After that Medibank would probably be sold—either whole or in pieces.
It seems that downward pressure is the last thing that is going to be exerted on premiums. It is incumbent upon the government, should it be successful in getting the privatisation bill through, to provide some sort of assurance to existing Medibank members rather than just throwing them and their premiums to the breeze. The members need some certainty about what is likely to happen to their premiums. That is not being addressed. It is certainly contrary to the position that has been asserted by the Minister for Health and Ageing in this regard.
Health and health insurance are vital areas when it comes to public policy. Changes to Medicare, the subsidisation of the private health insurance industry through the 30 per cent health insurance rebate and the dogged determination of this government to inject the private sector into health care while it extracts itself make the sale of Medibank all the more important. The sale of Medibank will not result in better service. In itself it will not lower administrative costs. It will not reduce the regulatory burden and it will certainly not put downward pressure on premiums. It has certainly become clear that the sale of Medibank will do everything but put downward pressure on premiums. For the doubters out there, the government’s record on premiums stands in stark contrast to its assertions that this sale will place downward pressure on premiums.
People need only remember that since 2001 health insurance premiums have increased by 40 per cent. A change in the primary motivation of Medibank from being a not-for-profit organisation to an organisation motivated by profit—one where the operator will necessarily be geared to generating a profit and return to shareholders—will give an entirely new complexion to the industry. We should bear in mind that Medibank Private at this stage accounts for 30 per cent of that industry. Once the largest operator in the market is let loose—having to placate shareholders and having to generate profits—it will not be long before it starts to place considerable pressure on the government to increase premiums regularly and probably significantly. Naturally Medibank’s lobbying will be supported by the rest of the industry, placing even more pressure on the government, and before you know it the health minister will have his rubber stamp out once more to approve further premium hikes and meet the wishes of the health insurance industry.
Even the best companies in the most homogeneous industries find it difficult to balance the competing motivations of profit, service and competition. So how can anyone really expect it to be any different when it comes to the health insurance industry? I oppose this bill. I think any members who consider the welfare of private health insurance holders should equally oppose this bill. (Time expired)
I, together with the member for Werriwa, oppose the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006. It will put into the health system increased costs that will fall on individuals, and that can only be bad for people struggling to meet health costs. The fact is that Medicare has been and can be a world-class universal healthcare system, providing affordable health care to all Australians—a system whereby what gets you that affordable health care is your Medicare card, not your credit card.
But let us be clear at the outset as to who in this parliament is really committed to Medicare. Labor created Medicare under the Whitlam government; the Liberals under the Fraser government wrecked it. It was recreated again under the Hawke Labor government; the Howard government, when it came to office, wanted to wreck it again. They could not because, by that stage, it had been so entrenched and universally accepted, so what they did was undermine the system and starve it of funds. They ran down bulk-billing and increased patient out-of-pocket expenses. They forced a position in which people who got sick could not go to a doctor but turned up at the emergency wards of public hospitals, adding to the waiting lists. This was cost shifting of the worst order. They forced more and more people into the private system and diverted resources into that system to drive private health insurance, forcing more people onto it. It was another way, if you like, of forcing people to pay more for their health care—shifting the cost from the public to the private.
Interestingly, it is worthwhile reminding the House that the way they paid for the private health rebate was not new money; it was money diverted by their scrapping of the co-contributions system for superannuation—a system that Labor had developed, which the Howard government promised to keep before the 1996 elections, but, when they came to office, they abolished it. They used the savings from that to fund the injection into the private health rebate. In other words, they took a benefit from all of the workforce—superannuation—and redistributed it to private health insurance, covering just half the population.
Also prior to the 2001 election, they promised to keep private health insurance premiums down. I even remember the Prime Minister offering personally to intervene to stop increases in private health insurance. Since then, private health insurance went up each year: in 2002 by seven per cent; in 2003, another 7.4 per cent; in 2004, 7.6 per cent; in 2005, eight per cent; and in 2006, 5.7 per cent. No intervention as promised by the Prime Minister. Another broken promise. End result? People forced to pay more for their health. Honest John indeed!
Under the bill before us, Medibank Private is now to be sold. Instead of a not-for-profit organisation, it will become a for-profit organisation. As the member for Werriwa said, does anyone really believe that that will do other than force private health insurance premiums up even further? If the government would not exercise control over costs and now it is selling the remaining mechanism by which downward pressure on healthcare costs could be affected, does anyone seriously suggest that the hike in private insurance premiums that we have seen under this government will not just continue upwards? The Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing parrot the Goebbels chant. You heard it again today in question time when the minister said that this government is the best friend Medicare has ever had. But, like so much of their mantra, the facts are different.
The government, of course, know they are hugely vulnerable on the claim about their support for Medicare. It is, in fact, a huge lie to say that they are the best friends of Medicare. The truth of it is they cannot win free-to-air publicity on their claim, so they buy time: paid advertising to reinforce the chant, money spent—some $100 million of it just on advertising alone for this system—not to improve the system, not to tell people how to better access it, not to help people get their costs down but simply an advertising campaign to identify themselves with the Medicare brand name.
Let us just look at the facts, because I think it is instructive. I sought leave from the minister at the table before—and I hope he has passed it onto the current minister, the Minister for Community Services—to incorporate in Hansard this table which shows the national bulk-billing rate since 1984-85.
Leave granted.
The graph read as follows—
This is a very interesting graph because it shows, in the columns that are red in colour in the original and extend from 1984-85 up to and including 1996-97—essentially when Labor was in office and was committed to rebuilding Medicare, which had been trashed by the Fraser government—that in each of the years, because of Labor’s commitment, we saw an increasingly steady trend to increases in bulk-billing, and so much so that we peaked with an over 80 per cent national bulk-billing rate in 1995-96. There was a continuous upwards trend in all the years because Labor was committed to Medicare.
When the government came to office, withdrew the funds and did not maintain the commitment to Medicare, we saw a steady decline until 2003. Why do we start to see the pick-up after that? Because in 2002-03 Labor hammered the government on this issue. We developed a policy in opposition to repair the system. Labor set about providing the means by which we could rebuild the system—as opposed to wrecking it. We proposed measures to increase the rebate for all bulk-billed patients. In addition, we provided targeted incentives to reward doctors in disadvantaged regions. It was a bold response to restore the universality and affordability of the system. It was costed and funded—it was affordable. So effective was the campaign that the government panicked. You might remember that they changed ministers. They also had to pump money in because they were losing ground in the polls. They increased the rebate, but effectively they only increased it for the aged and children in families. In other words, they embraced the direction of Labor’s solution but nowhere near comprehensively enough.
It is true that the bulk-billing rate has increased since then, but that simply confirms the direction of the policy that Labor was advocating: start fixing the rebate and you will see an increase in bulk-billing rates. But, even with the half-hearted approach that the government has made, bulk-billing rates are not even back to where they had fallen to in 2001-02. They are about 75 per cent, well under the over 80 per cent that they peaked at when Labor was in office.
The system can be repaired, but it requires a belief in it and a commitment from government to repair the rebate system. It is a commitment this government will not make. It is now resting on its laurels thinking that the heat has gone out of this debate, but it will not go out of this debate.
I remind the House of the government’s performance on health care. They gave an ironclad guarantee shortly before the last election was called. In fact, on 6 September 2004 the Minister for Health and Ageing committed to keeping the Medicare safety net at its existing level, only to have the Prime Minister and the Treasurer humiliate him by repudiating that ‘ironclad’ commitment once the election was over. The government say whatever it takes to get elected. Do not believe them. They are not sincere.
But the message from all of this is clear: if you want Medicare as a universal system of affordable care, only Labor—the creators of it, the believers in it, those committed to strengthening it—can deliver that. And strengthened it must be. As we have an ageing population—with medical science driving longevity—health care and aged care, together with superannuation, are the generational challenges of our time. The government pretended to support Medicare—they had advertisements to say that they supported Medicare—but they do not have the commitment. Beyond the deceitful and costly advertising, theirs is a two-pronged solution, forcing Australians to pay more for their health and blaming the states.
Instead of blaming the states, this country needs a federal government committed to funding Medicare and aged care, thereby taking pressure off the hospital system, and using that commitment to forge a new health partnership with the states. Only Labor will make such a commitment.
The government’s position, bad as it is, only gets worse under this bill. Now they want to sell Medibank Private. They say that it will produce efficiencies on the basis of some scoping study from Carnegie Wylie and Co. but they will not produce the study to show how those efficiencies will materialise. I call on the min-ister to produce that study, to show the public and this House the evidence. Do not just make the assertion; give us the material upon which you base that assertion.
It goes further because there is a real issue concerning where the proceeds of the sale will go. When the government first announced its intention to sell Medibank Private in April, the Parliamentary Library produced a report on the consequences of that sale. One of their conclusions was that members of the Medibank Private fund had rights in the sale. The argument goes—and I commend this research briefing to the House—that, essentially, unlike other funds, where members make contributions, private health funds are subject to community rating and members, despite what the rules of the fund might say about the ability of the fund to cancel their membership, cannot have their membership cancelled if it involves discrimination. There is a fairly lengthy list of things for which you cannot be discriminated against. They cannot discriminate, for example, if you are chronically ill or on the basis of your sex or race. They cannot discriminate and force you out on the basis of your age. Essentially, under legislation that governs private health funds, members are entitled to retain membership as long as they continue paying.
A not-for-profit organisation, by its very nature, cannot distribute profits but has to manage its assets in the interests of members. In other words, it cannot simply go about and fundamentally change its status without having regard to the members’ interests. The research paper from the Parliamentary Library is quite categorical: members have rights over the existing assets of the fund. This in turn suggests that members could have a right to compensation if the government sold it.
What do the government say? They categorically deny that members have those rights. They say they do not have to pay compensation, even though there are some interesting adjustments now in the bill that suggest they might recognise that there is a compensation liability there. They essentially say that the Parliamentary Library is wrong. They hastily commissioned Blake Dawson Waldron, their law firm of choice, to confirm their view. The Parliamentary Library responded by categorically rebutting aspects of that part of the BDW—Blake Dawson Waldron—analysis that sought to counter the Parliamentary Library’s assertions.
This is a government not known for being open with its information. It is a government known, in fact, for its avoidance of scrutiny. It rushes legislation in when it suits to deny not only proper debate but informed analysis. I commend the Parliamentary Library not only for the rigour of the work but for the way in which they have been able to respond so expeditiously to the Blake Dawson Waldron legal opinion, because this was material that only came to us in the opposition the very day this legislation was being debated in the parliament. The Parliamentary Library’s work is comprehensive. I commend it to all members of the House. It gives, on the face of it, a significant rebuttal of the legal advice that the government relies upon.
Here we have the circumstances of the government paying for its propaganda defence. I pay tribute to the library, in particular the authors, Luke Buckmaster and Jerome Davidson, for the way in which they have been able to analyse this in the public interest. I do not just urge members of parliament to read this to reject the proposal we have before us; I urge the public, in particular members of Medibank Private, to read the analysis.
What we have is the hired legal mouthpiece versus the independent and first-rate parliamentary research facility. And if anyone doubts that tag, I remind the House that a couple of days ago that is exactly what the minister for health acknowledged they were. This is not just a mere difference of opinion; the Parliamentary Library research conclusion is damning of the Blake Dawson Waldron advice. The government was forced to provide that legal advice because of analysis previously done by the library that the government claimed was wrong.
I made the point before that the government will not release the scoping study from Carnegie Wylie. It is that study upon which they rely to assert that there are efficiencies to be gained from selling Medibank Private. How does the public know? The parliament cannot know, because the government will not release the details of the scoping study. One can only ask the question: will that advice stack up to scrutiny when it is released—if it ever will be released?
The conclusion one comes to is that there is too much uncertainty associated with the bill before the House. Our suggestion to the government is: withdraw the bill. Withdraw it until you release the Carnegie Wylie advice and until you respond to the Parliamentary Library more effectively than simply by saying your preference is to rely on Blake Dawson Waldron. That is not an answer. It is not rigour. It is poor public policy and, if it proceeds, the public will pay again.
When a government want to sell a publicly owned authority, they need to make the case. They need to make the case to the public as to why it is necessary or beneficial that that organisation be privatised. They need to explain to the shareholders—that is, the public—why that particular public administration should be in private hands. The government has miserably failed to make the case in this instance.
There are a number of justifications that can be used for particular privatisations. Sometimes the rationale for government ownership has disappeared—sometimes the reasons that an organisation was placed into government ownership have disappeared as the world has changed. Sometimes the entity requires a capital injection, and it is not fair to require taxpayers to make that capital injection. Neither of these reasons applies in this case.
Let us have a look at the government’s attempts at justification. The government has said that the privatisation of Medibank Private is necessary to drive down management costs and to introduce private sector efficiencies. But this justification is particularly thin. The management expenses for Medibank Private as a percentage of member contributions are 9.2 per cent. The industry average is 9.5 per cent. The relevant figure for NBF is 10 per cent, for NIB it is 11.8 per cent and for MBF it is 9.3 per cent. It is true to say that for Australia’s largest for-profit medical insurer, BUPA, the relevant figure is 7.7 per cent. I acknowledge that. However, BUPA also has less success in retaining members, has received more complaints about service and has a lower percentage of benefits paid to members as a percentage of contributions than does Medibank Private.
It is very easy to get your management costs down if you provide an organisation or service of lower quality. Of Australia’s four for-profit health funds, each one has higher premiums than Medibank Private. This argument is so thin it is risible. The government says it has a report to justify this claim, the Carnegie Wylie report, a report sitting on the desk of the Minister for Finance and Administration. It is not one he will share with this House, not one he will share with the other house, not one he will share with Medibank Private members and not one he will share with taxpayers. He has kept it on his desk and it is impossible to test the veracity of that report when this government insists on keeping it secret, but all the evidence is that the government’s argument is absolutely ridiculous.
The government also says that it has a conflict of interest in owning Australia’s largest health insurer while being the regulator. But it has not been able to provide one single instance over the last 10 years where this conflict of interest has arisen or caused it a difficulty. The government dealt with this conflict of interest back in—I think it was—2003 when it made the minister for finance the shareholder of MBF, while the minister for health is the regulator. Governments do this all the time, state governments in particular—they keep the organisation in public ownership but separate the ministerial responsibility for ownership and regulation. It has been happening for years. It does not appear to have caused the government too much grief in the last 10 years. Of course, if it is such a big issue the government will be moving to privatise Australia Post any day because the same exact issue arises in relation to postal services.
Some on the other side have used the argument that Medibank Private needs to be privatised to give it the full ability to act as a private instrumentality, so that it would have access to private sector capital. This argument is also particularly thin. The Parliamentary Library, which the honourable member for Hotham referred to, deals with this argument in its Bills Digest. It says:
A publicly listed Medibank Private would not have any more freedom under the Act and regulations than it has under its current ownership arrangements.
That has been supported by the chief executive of Medibank Private. Equally ridiculous is the argument that Medibank Private needs an injection of capital and that taxpayers should not be required to contribute that capital. That is an argument which has been put in this House, it is an argument that Senator Barnett in the other house has made publicly and it can be, in some instances, a very powerful argument. It was in Qantas, for example, where a massive injection of capital was needed to keep the organisation afloat. When taxpayers are given the choice of whether to put the money into this instrumentality or direct it to services such as health and education, most taxpayers would not have any difficulty in saying that it should go into health or education. It is a particularly irrelevant argument in this case.
Medibank Private has not gone to the government and asked for capital. Medibank Private does not need capital to stay afloat. Medibank Private does not need a massive injection of funds to undertake modernisation. In fact, in 30 years of existence Medibank Private has had just three injections of capital. There was one in 1976, which was an injection of $10 million to establish the fund in the first place and which was fully repaid to the government. There was another in 1978, again $11 million of establishment grants, which was mainly to reimburse Medibank Private for expenditure it had undertaken. Again, in 2005 there was $85 million to increase its capital to better reflect its market share. So no case has been made to say that an increase in capital is needed and therefore those funds should come from the share market and not from taxpayers.
We have heard the argument from honourable members on the other side, when they were still choosing to make a contribution to this debate before their speakers’ list ran out, that this privatisation is necessary to fund medical research—that the funds from the privatisation will go into medical research. What an insult to say that the only way we can fund medical research, with the largest budget surplus in this nation’s history, is to sell off a public body. What an insult to our intelligence. What an insult to say to medical researchers and people relying on medical research, ‘The only way we can answer your claims for funding priority is to sell an instrumentality which has been owned by taxpayers for the last 30 years.’ It is a disgrace to the parliament that that insult was even raised by members opposite.
Having established that there is very little reason to proceed with this privatisation, it is necessary to examine some of the potential ramifications. The first is that the government is leaving the taxpayer open to potential compensation for policyholders. The government has tabled legal advice from Blake Dawson Waldron that there would be no case for compensation for Medibank Private policyholders. The Parliamentary Library has issued, I would say, an unusually strongly wordedBills Digest which not only questions the advice but rebuts it. I do not pretend to adjudicate between those two pieces of advice, I do not pretend to be in a position to do so; I suspect that one day the courts will do so. But there are views very strongly held on each side and the government would want to have very good reasons for taking the risk of opening the taxpayer up to compensation on such a large scale. If the government wants to take a calculated risk that it is going to open the taxpayer up to this potential compensation then you would want it to have a very good public policy ground to do it, but it does not. It has no good reason to go down this road and it arrogantly rejects any advice which does not suit its political circumstances.
People who have health insurance will want to know what the impact of this privatisation will be on the health insurance market and on their premiums. It is fair to say that the effects will be complex and they are not necessarily all known, but we can be sure that they will be significant. Medibank Private is Australia’s largest health insurer. It covers 29 per cent of the market. It is the largest private health insurer in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and the Northern Territory, and it is the second largest insurer in the other states. So its privatisation will certainly be felt. Standard and Poor’s said so. They said that the privatisation of Medibank Private would be ‘likely to materially affect the competitive dynamics of the industry’. It stands to reason that that would be the case when you have the largest provider of a particular service changing ownership in such a dramatic way.
The Fraser government kept Medibank Private in public hands to promote competition, because they did not feel that having a private entity liable for takeover would be in the best interests of the Australian people. Nothing has changed since Malcolm Fraser’s government took that decision 30 years ago on that argument. Thankfully, the government have now decided to proceed with a stock market float as opposed to a trade sale. They originally were going to bring this legislation in and say in a typically arrogant and high-handed manner, ‘We’re going to sell Medibank Private. We are not going to tell you whether it will be a trade float or a stock market float until after the election, but we just want the authority to do that.’ Thankfully, they have changed their approach and have now said it will be a stock market sale, which means that Medibank Private will not, in the first instance, be taken over by another fund. But the restrictions on ownership apply for only five years. The government is legislating that no organisation will be able to take more than 15 per cent of Medibank Private, but this is grandfathered for five years. In five years time, we could see Medibank Private collapsed into another fund. And, of course, Medibank Private will now have a profit motive instead of being a not-for-profit fund. So there is the potential for Medibank Private to be merged with another fund, for the competitive pressure to therefore be taken out of the private health insurance market and, by definition, Medibank Private will now be for profit instead of not for profit.
The government says that this will put downward pressure on premiums, but it does so without any possible justification, rationale or explanation. It comes in here and says, ‘Isn’t the private sector wonderful. If we could just get the bureaucrats out of Medibank Private and install a private sector ethic, then they would be able to put that downward pressure on premiums.’ But the government provides no rational explanation for that and the figures do not back it up—and this is from a government which promised in 2001 to reduce private health insurance premiums and since that time has presided over an increase in private health insurance premiums of 40 per cent. Members of the public have a right to be concerned when they hear this government promising anything on private health insurance.
The arguments for this privatisation are particularly thin. Privatisations can, at times, be necessary. This one represents bad policy and bad economics. It is driven purely by ideology. There is no other possible explanation. This government’s extreme right-wing ideology is being exposed again. As such, it has to be opposed. Not only do Medibank Private health insurance holders need it to be opposed but also every holder of private health insurance in this country needs it to be opposed. The Labor Party will oppose it and we will be making this a key issue in the next election campaign.
I would like to thank the previous speaker, the member for Prospect, for his contribution. I am sure those who are listening to this debate will note that it made much sense, because it is clear that the substantive arguments used by the government to validate the sale of Medibank Private do not stack up. We know that the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 repeals sections of the National Health Act to allow the sole shareholder of Medibank Private—that is, the Commonwealth—to sell its 85,000,100 shares in the fund. Medibank Private is, of course, a Commonwealth owned private health insurer. It is Australia’s largest and only truly national private health insurer. A little later I will refer to its importance in the marketplace, particularly in the area in which I live.
Whilst a sale of Medibank Private has been debated for some years, it was only in April of this year that the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Minister for Health and Ageing announced they would finally move to privatise the company. This bill, as others have said, is the government’s attempt to do that. In preparation for a sell-off, the bill provides for changing the status of the fund from a not-for-profit organisation to a for-profit organisation, placing foreign ownership and Australian identity restrictions on directors and its national office for a period of five years, allowing pre-privatisation profits to be redistributed and ensuring that the fund, not the Commonwealth, is liable for any compensation claims that arise from the sale.
Like my Labor colleagues, I am opposed to the privatisation of Medibank Private for a number of quite valid and, I think, quite important reasons. Firstly, there is no evidence that the sale will reduce premiums or increase competition. That is particularly important for people who live in the community of Lingiari, which covers all of the Northern Territory except Darwin and Palmerston. It is an area, as I have said many times in this place, that covers 1.34 million square kilometres and also includes Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Indian Ocean. This will do nothing to increase competition in that market and it will become amply evident why that is the case when I approach those issues very shortly.
Secondly, premiums are principally driven by health costs, an issue which the Howard government has failed to adequately address through its health policies—and we know that the shadow minister has been able to make that case time and time again. It has not been refuted by the government, nor has it been responded to in any way that would give the public any assurance that the government is on top of the issue. Thirdly, the Howard government cannot guarantee that the sale will have a positive impact on members, and as a result is allowing a six-month notification period to allow members to transfer out of the fund prior to the sale. That is rather odd, would you not think? If they were so confident about the sale, you would not expect them to believe that a large number of members would want to transfer out within a six-month period.
Fourthly, the government cannot guarantee that the sale will have a positive impact on members and their premiums, and as a result is not allowing scrutiny of the impact of the change of Medibank’s status—and that, of course, should be of concern to all of us. Fifthly, Medibank’s privatisation will have little or no effect on their current operational requirements or ability to operate as a private company. They are already a competitive fund, recording large surpluses in recent times and relatively low management expense ratios.
But a large part of my objection to this bill is in the failure of the government, once again, to propose legislation in this place which will have a meaningful, lasting and positive effect on those people who live in regional and remote parts of Australia, particularly in my own electorate, principally—but not only—because of the health indicators that are there for all to see. Where there is extreme poverty, there is inequality and disadvantage, and people suffer incredibly poor health. It is very clear that there is nothing in this legislation that will either promote increased competition in the private health market or do anything to address the inadequacy of health services in those communities. The government will, and do, come into this place and argue that the bill is about improving the effectiveness and efficiency of health provision. That, of course, is according to their own ideological view, because, in reality, in electorates like mine the record of the government in relation to the provision of health services is one of abysmal failure.
Let me go to the whole question of private health insurance in regional Australia. Health experts Buddhima Lokuge, Richard Denniss and Thomas Faunce have undertaken the task of assessing the effectiveness of private health insurance in the regional areas of Australia in improving access to health services. This, of course, is fundamentally what we would want it to be—not taking out private health insurance for the sake of taking out private health insurance but taking it out in the hope that it would improve access to health services for the people who take out that insurance and take pressure of the public health system.
The observations that these experts have made have been recently published in an article titled ‘Private health insurance and regional Australia’ in the March 2005 issue of the Medical Journal of Australia, and those observations are well worth noting for the purposes of this debate. The authors of the article were critical of the government’s approach of increasing federal expenditure on health by means of private health insurance subsidies and tax rebates, particularly in terms of health outcomes for disadvantaged people and people living in regional Australia. They argue that, while targeted programs to increase the take-up of private health insurance may have some effect in urban areas, success is limited in regional areas for two reasons, and those reasons are set out in their article in the Medical Journal of Australia. They say:
First, income is one of the strongest predictors of PHI—
private health insurance—
uptake, and average incomes are lower in regional than in urban areas. Multiple studies show that there is a clear income gradient to the uptake of PHI, with lower incomes groups less likely to have PHI. As a result, PHI as a mechanism for federal health funding disadvantages regional communities, compared with, for example, the distribution of funds on a per-capita basis.
Second, a structural reason why PHI membership is less attractive to residents of regional areas is the limited availability of private facilities. The central reason to purchase PHI cover is to have affordable access to private hospital facilities. ABS and AIHW statistics on hospitals and bed numbers by location indicate that private facilities are concentrated in urban areas.
The article goes on to say:
Across Australia only 16% of hospitals located outside of major cities are private facilities.
Let us just think about that. It is very simple. Where incomes are low and where people are disadvantaged, they are less likely to take up private health insurance, which is hardly arguable, I would have thought. I notice my friend from the National Party, the member for Parkes, is sitting here in the House. He would know that in western New South Wales it is very much the case that, where income levels are low, people find it difficult to meet the payments for private health insurance and therefore do not take it up. Secondly, as he would also know, access to private health facilities, if available at all, is quite remote.
In the case of my own electorate of Lingiari, there is not one private hospital bed. So the access to private hospital services that might otherwise attract people to take out private health insurance just is not there. And this government has done nothing, in the 10 years it has been in government, to provide or promote access to private health services for people in remote communities.
I sit here wondering, often, what the National Party are doing in coalition, because their impact on the coalition in getting a decent outcome for people in the bush is pretty dreadful. In the case of this area it is particularly dreadful. And it is there for all to see.
The government’s aim in privatising Medibank Private is, of course, to improve its competitiveness in the private health insurance market. The Minister for Finance and Administration has told us that this sell-off will result in a Medibank Private that can ‘grow and prosper free of government ownership, while continuing to offer competitive premiums to its members’.
Supposedly, government incentives for Australians to take up private health insurance from privatised health insurance providers will encourage efficient and effective delivery of health services—but, as I have noted, the authors of the Medical Journal of Australia article make it clear that the government’s approach is not an effective of efficient use of resources. The authors of the article conclude:
PHI subsidies are a non-universal and indirect means of channelling public expenditures into the healthcare system. This approach gives governments only limited control over the regional and demographic distribution of funds, disadvantaging groups who are less likely to use or benefit from PHI, including those on low incomes and Indigenous Australians. While Medicare has limitations, its universality and the direct nature of hospital funding allow greater flexibility to promote equitable and needs-based distribution of funds.
I would have thought that that was very obvious. My electorate clearly demonstrates the short-sightedness of the government’s approach, and strongly reflects the observations made by Lokuge, Denniss and Faunce.
As I have described on many occasions in this place, my electorate covers some of the most remote parts of Australia, 40 per cent of the population in my electorate are Indigenous, and most of those are extremely disadvantaged and suffering from immense poverty.
As a result, it is no surprise that the health status of many people in my electorate is parlous. The Australian Medical Association wrote about this parlous state in its position statement on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health published in 2005. In it, it noted that in 1999-2000 the life expectancy of Indigenous men was 56.3 years as opposed to 77 years for non-Indigenous men. For women, the difference was 62.8 years as opposed to 82.4 years for non-Indigenous women. That is a glaring difference.
We also know that the instances of chronic disease are too high among Indigenous Australians. If I look at my electorate, the data for the Northern Territory provided in the Centre for Remote Health’s Indigenous populations and resource flows in Central Australia report of 2005 shows that between 1979 and 1995 one-fifth of all deaths among Indigenous people were related to five chronic diseases. They were kidney and renal disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and hypertension, heart attack and related heart disease, and chronic obstructive airways diseases like emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
We know that Indigenous people are suffering these chronic diseases in far greater numbers than non-Indigenous people. In 2001, Indigenous people in remote areas were twice as likely as non-Indigenous people to have diabetes—16 per cent as opposed to two per cent. There is an even greater gap in relation to renal disease. Based on data for 2001, new incidences of renal disease were mostly reported among Indigenous people: 80 per cent in males and 86 per cent in females. This is despite the fact that they only make up 30 and 27 per cent of the population respectively.
We also know that these chronic diseases are attacking Indigenous people at a younger age than non-Indigenous people: between 1991 and 1995, Indigenous males in the NT faced death rates from chronic diseases that were the equal of non-Indigenous males 10 to 20 years older than them.
These figures reflect not only the poor state of health that many in my electorate find themselves in but also the poor access they have to the health services they need, and the health services enjoyed by Australians in other parts of the country. The Centre for Remote Health’s report notes:
In order to improve health status in the region, we require both adequate access to high quality health services and improvements in the social and economic conditions for Indigenous people.
The government’s approach to pushing private health insurance does little to improve the access of people in my electorate to adequate health services.
Despite what the government would have us think, what it proposes in this bill will have very little positive effect for those in my electorate who do not have equitable access to health, and will do nothing to promote competition within the private health sector.
Flogging off Medibank Private for a quick buck does not mean much for a place where there are very low take-up rates of private health insurance. The take-up rate of private health insurance in Lingiari is, in fact, the lowest in Australia. The take-up rate in 2004 was 22.4 per cent. It actually fell slightly the following year, 2005, to 22.3 per cent. This is a far cry from the take-up rate in the former health minister’s seat of Bradfield, where the rate in 2005 was 79.8 per cent, or even the present minister’s seat of Warringah, which has a rate of 65.3 per cent. The rate in Lingiari is also well below the national average, which is 40 per cent.
Of the 22 per cent of people in Lingiari who take up private health insurance, a significant proportion are likely to be members of Medibank Private. Medibank Private is the largest provider of private health insurance in the Northern Territory and, courtesy of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman’s 2005 State of the health funds report, we know that it has a 42.9 per cent share of the health fund market in the Territory. I am sure those people in my electorate who are Medibank Private members want to see their health insurance premiums kept at a reasonable, affordable rate.
The recent history, of course, is that Medibank increased its premiums in February 2006 by 5.88 per cent, in March 2005 by 7.94 per cent and in February 2004 by 8.95 per cent. The Minister for Finance and Administration tells us this:
… Medibank Private can grow and prosper free of government ownership, while continuing to offer competitive premiums to its members.
Vibrant competition between health funds is the best way to put a lid on premium increases. A privatised Medibank can deliver lower management expenses and can look to expand into new business areas, lowering its average costs across the business.
There has been absolutely no evidence at all given to us by the government to suggest how this sell-off would result in reduced premiums or increased levels of competition in the private health insurance market. I think I have made it abundantly clear that there are no advantages to the people who have private health insurance in the Northern Territory or who are members of Medibank Private in my electorate as a result of these proposals. There will be no increased competition. The market is suffering as a result of the parlous access to health facilities and services, and I have to say that when we look at the Bills Digest it makes that abundantly clear—and what a strong Bills Digest it is in refuting the government’s claims as to why we should be supporting this legislation. I urge the House to support the view of the opposition and oppose it.
I also rise to speak against the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006. We on this side of the House are totally opposed to the sale of Medibank Private because it is the wrong decision. Medibank Private should remain in public hands and should not be sold off. But let’s make no mistake about it: this sale is totally ideologically driven, and the very weak justifications for the privatisation offered up by this government are indeed baseless. This is highlighted in the Parliamentary Library briefing, which I will discuss later on.
The public are very concerned about the effect of this sale—I know many people locally have approached me about their concerns—because the reality is that premiums will rise for all private health customers as a result of this sale. There is no doubt about that, and no consideration at all has been given to the three million members of Medibank Private, or indeed to all holders of private health insurance, for the negative impact of the inevitable premium rises. Families are already under huge amounts of pressure at the moment with cost of living increases and interest rate increases. They know, that when this sale goes through, their private health insurance premiums will go through the roof, and it is going to cause great pressure for so many families.
Medibank Private has around 30 per cent of the health insurance market, and in New South Wales around 23.8 per cent of the private health insurance clients are insured with Medibank Private. In my electorate of Richmond around 30 per cent of residents have private health insurance, and that means that when these premiums rise, as they will, there will be tens of thousands of people locally who will indeed be worse off. But this government does not care about these thousands of people in Richmond who will be adversely affected, just as it does not care about the three million members of Medibank Private who will be adversely affected nationally.
Further, none of these figures can take into account the impact on future health insurance clients. We have seen premiums rise by almost 40 per cent in five years under this government, so how much more are they going to rise when there is no regulation? How will our children or grandchildren be able to afford private health cover once Medibank Private is sold and the premiums go through the roof?
In the current situation the not-for-profit nature of Medibank Private means that any surpluses are returned to members via premiums. But, when Medibank Private changes from not-for-profit to for-profit, undoubtedly we will see premiums rise. The board of a publicly listed Medibank Private will be required by law to maximise the profits and returns to its shareholders. It is only common sense, therefore, that a privatised Medibank Private will have to return to shareholders the profit that is currently going to premiums.
The Australian public are very aware of this. They know that premiums will rise and they are very rightly concerned about the negative impact this sale will have upon them. The government says that premiums will not rise as a result of the sale. In 2001 this same government said the introduction of the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance would put downward pressure on private health insurance premiums. Since then we have seen a 40 per cent rise in private health insurance premiums. Let’s hope, when the premiums supposedly do not rise after the sale, that they do not rise by 40 per cent, just like they did not rise after the introduction of the rebate.
We have a situation now where the Minister for Health and Ageing approves every application from the private health insurance sector for increases in their premiums. The government can come out and say this time that premiums will not rise, but we have heard it all before. We know that it is rubbish. We know that premiums are going to rise. We know that that is the absolute end result of the sale of Medibank Private. I think everyone is aware of this, and we are hearing this right across the board from a whole range of people. Everyone is admitting it except the government. The fact is that they will rise, and rise quite dramatically. There is no doubt about it. And not only will premiums rise but services are likely to fall.
Apart from the management efficiency the government is talking about—by which of course they mean sacking workers—we will see offices closed and access limited. That is going to be the reality of this sale—have no doubt about it. In Richmond we saw as a precursor to the sale of Medibank Private the closure of the Medibank Private office at the Centro Tweed shopping centre in Tweed Heads. That closed just before Christmas, but this office was relocated to Elanora on the Gold Coast, which is in Queensland. It caused a huge outcry from locals when suddenly the Tweed Heads office was closed. It was particularly distressing for the many elderly residents who used the local Medibank Private office. In Tweed Heads there are many elderly residents and, as I say, there was this huge outcry because so many of them had been able to access that office there. It was clearly a precursor to the sale of Medibank Private when they started closing offices right around the place.
Many locals approached me about their concerns that this office was closing down, and what is particularly annoying is that there is no Medibank Private office now between the Gold Coast and Lismore. There were three on the Gold Coast and now there is this other one at Elanora, so there are four on the Gold Coast and one in Lismore. Yet in Tweed Heads we have this huge proportion of elderly people who cannot access a Medibank Private office at all, causing them great distress. So many of them have approached me about their concerns. They were not even informed that it was happening. Particularly for those who are pensioners and on fixed incomes, the distress that it caused them was quite overwhelming but very much indicative of the sort of attitude this government has when it comes to elderly people.
They are still very distressed about it, and added to the distress now, of course, is the fact that Medibank Private is going to be sold, which is concerning them even more because those on fixed incomes—again, particularly those pensioners who are already doing it so tough—just will not be able to find that extra money to afford those health insurance increases that we are undoubtedly going to see with the sale of Medibank Private.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
I would like to update the House on the expenditure habits of the Howard government. The arrogance of this government’s expenditure far outstrips that of any previous government, and most arrogant of all is this government’s ability to spend money on advertising. When a government expropriates taxpayers’ money for its own political purposes, it is a sure sign that that government is out of touch, arrogant and has been in office far too long. This week it was revealed in Senate estimates hearings that in the last financial year the government spent $208.5 million of taxpayers’ money on its own advertising. Of this, $137 million was for campaign advertising and $70.7 million was for non-campaign advertising. This represents an increase of 50 per cent on last year, which was itself a very heavy year for advertising expenditure.
Most of this was blatant political advertising. The figure includes $55 million on Work Choices. What it does not include are the blanket T3 ads that we see deluging the airwaves and the newspapers at the moment. It also does not include—because it came after the end of the financial year—the $2.6 million the government has spent selling its LPG conversion grant, a particularly wasteful advertising budget when you consider that people are already waiting six months for that conversion. The government spent this $2.6 million on, amongst other things, 7,000 radio ads across the country.
The forward estimates show that $250 million of taxpayers’ money will be spent on 13 campaigns in the lead-up to the next election—and that on a day when it has been revealed that CSIRO has reduced funding for renewable energy projects. This money could have been spent on investment in skills, it could have been spent on education or it could have been used to partially reverse this government’s cuts to tertiary education. It is the only government in the OECD which has reduced funding for tertiary education. We have one of the highest spending governments on advertising in the world. The same government has reduced funding to universities—and that says a lot. This funding could have been used to improve the security of regional airports, something this government has neglected despite its parading around the country as the champion of national security.
In 1996 the federal government was the third largest advertiser in the country; now it is the largest. Some government advertising is appropriate. It is appropriate that we advertise for Defence recruitment, it is appropriate that the ABC advertises and it is appropriate that certain campaigns are funded. But this government has expropriated taxpayers’ money for its own political purposes, and the Liberal Party should be reimbursing the taxpayers.
Labor in office will have no ad going to air which is not approved by the Public Service Commissioner in line with guidelines issued by the Auditor-General. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, who is at the table, may smirk but he knows that the public do not approve of their funds being expropriated for political purposes—and this is just a part of this government’s wasteful expenditure. We have seen $1.3 million spent on opinion polling to perfect the government’s messages in its Work Choices campaign. We have seen the budget for opinion polling by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations increase in 12 months not by 100 per cent, not by 200 per cent, not by 500 per cent but by 1,468 per cent. What a coincidence it is that, when this government is bringing in extreme industrial relations changes, it increases its opinion polling budget by 1,468 per cent!
When you look across all portfolios you see that last financial year this government spent $30 million of taxpayers’ money on its own opinion polling. This is another disgrace. And $360,311 has been spent by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations on Work Choices public relations management. Give the taxpayers’ money back! The Liberal Party should be writing a big fat cheque to the taxpayers of Australia. (Time expired)
About a month ago, on a fine Sunday, the Liberal Party members of Grey selected a new candidate to replace me at the next election. It was based on quite a historic event: a full plebiscite of all members.
We do that all the time!
We are not going to go your way! Of the 800 members, almost 400 people turned up, having travelled up to a 1,000-kilometre round trip, and they enjoyed an excellent day. The four candidates—Rowan Ramsey, John Voumard, Terry Boylan and Martin Whyte—were great candidates and they fought a very hard contest. I think some of them visited up to 400 delegates and rang another 200 delegates, just for the honour of contesting the seat of Grey at the next election. The Port Augusta branch put on the inevitable sausage sizzle and made it a great fundraiser. My electorate is almost one million square kilometres in size. It is not as big as Lingiari, the seat of my northern neighbour, but it approaches that size. The Liberal Party were able to come together and make a choice in a great spirit of camaraderie.
We are used to travelling distances, but I think most people in Australia would be somewhat amazed at the busloads and carloads of people that travelled hundreds and thousands of kilometres just to participate in democracy at the grassroots level. That commitment is a great testament to the Liberal Party members of my electorate. Plebiscites of all members, making decisions on who they send to this place in the future, are something to be recommended—indeed, to the Labor Party as well.
I rise to speak tonight on a very important issue: climate change. The issues of climate change and preserving our environment are indeed major concerns to the residents of Richmond. Firstly, our concern is for the environment as a whole, as this is one of the biggest issues confronting not just our nation but indeed the whole world. Secondly, residents of Richmond, who live on the Far North Coast of New South Wales, are seeing firsthand the devastating effects of not taking action to address climate change.
For 10 long years we have seen the Howard government in complete denial about climate change. In doing so it has been failing to protect Australia’s environmental and, indeed, economic future. What our nation needs is a federal government that puts the preservation of our environment before its own political preservation. It seems the only thing the Howard government values and cares about is its own preservation. But what Australia needs is a federal government that values the environment and takes real, decisive action on climate change. Instead, what do the Prime Minister and members of his government do? They ridicule people who talk about climate change—people who care about and value the future of our world. On many occasions they will stand up and ridicule those people rather than face the fact that, as everybody else knows, we have to address this very important issue. One of the Howard government’s standard responses is to talk about nuclear reactors. Federal Labor is totally opposed to that, and I know the residents of Richmond are totally opposed to it as well. In stark contrast to the Howard government’s complete denial on climate change, federal Labor has been raising this issue for many years, constantly saying, ‘We need to take decisive action on this very important issue.’
Last year I was very pleased to host two high-level environmental summits in my electorate, one at Kingscliff and one at Byron Bay. A range of issues were raised by the many participants who came along, but the major issue raised was their concern about climate change and the need to take action in relation to it. Federal Labor has been listening to what these people are saying, because we do take this issue extremely seriously. We know how important it is for our nation. Indeed, we know how important it is for the whole world.
Earlier this year federal Labor released a blueprint outlining what we would do to protect Australia from the threat of climate change. In that blueprint the Leader of the Opposition announced that we will ratify the Kyoto protocol, introduce targets to cut emissions, increase the mandatory renewable energy target and establish an emissions-trading program. We have also committed to a comprehensive national strategy to encourage the take-up of new and cleaner technologies, focusing Australian research on developing renewable energy such as solar, wind and geothermal energy. It really is a complete disgrace that the Howard government has failed to ratify the Kyoto protocol. We have said that on many occasions. Locals keep telling me how annoyed and angry they are at the Howard government for failing to ratify it.
Australia must join the global fight to stop the severe impacts of dangerous climate change. We all know what the impact of global warming means. We saw yesterday, with the release of the report of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, the confirmation of many of our greatest fears about global warming. This report outlined the reality that, if we do not take action, we will see more heatwaves, more floods, more bushfires, more droughts and rising sea levels. This damage to our environment will also have a huge flow-on impact upon Australia’s vital tourism industry, particularly in Richmond, which relies very heavily upon tourism. Millions of people come to our area every year. For example, over 1.5 million people per year visit Byron Bay, a pristine part of Australia. Tourism is absolutely vital to our local economy.
The Stern report also says that the failure to respond to the threat of global warming will cause massive economic and social disruption on a scale equivalent to both world wars and the Great Depression of the last century. I think statements like that are absolutely devastating when we look at the reality of the effect of global warming and the effect of not taking action in relation to it. It is truly shameful that the Howard government is not ratifying the Kyoto protocol, that it is not taking decisive and sufficient action. What sort of future are we creating for our children and grandchildren? It is a future that we are creating by the action we take or the action we do not take. Those on the Howard government side of the House have decided to not take action to create a better future for future generations, for our children and the world they will be left with. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to draw the attention of the House to the good work done in my electorate under the Regional Partnerships program and to draw attention to the threats which exist to this very successful program. Let me remind the House that Regional Partnerships began in 2003, with the aim of helping communities to become self-reliant by providing opportunities for economic development, social projects and better access to services. This is not a program that is run from the top down, with communities being told by some far-flung bureaucracy what they should have or how they should do it—quite the reverse. Communities are encouraged to draw up their own plans, based on their own particular needs, and are helped to put proposals forward by local area committees. This approach brings two benefits. First, we ensure that the projects are relevant and, second, the fact that the projects come from the community ensures that they are supported by the community, both in their development and once they are completed.
We are talking about regional Australia. We are talking about sustaining communities, often isolated and often far from the sorts of facilities that many people in our cities take for granted. These projects cover a whole range of services—business, sport, health and education. Since this program’s inception, federal funding has assisted some 1,088 projects across the nation, with a total federal input of $213 million. For every dollar of Commonwealth funding, the project partners have contributed three times that, contributing to a total of $852 million in value to the community.
Let me now turn to some of the benefits of this program in my electorate of Cowper. Those of us who live in regional and rural Australia know only too well that, whilst there may be an excellent quality of life, we are often a long way from specialised medical facilities when things go wrong. The stress and cost of having to travel to major centres for treatments such as radiotherapy adds to the difficulties of coping with a serious illness such as cancer.
I am delighted to say that in Coffs Harbour the federal government was able to assist the community. Through the Regional Partnerships program we were able to assist in the construction of a patients and carers lodge to provide accommodation for those who travel to Coffs Harbour for cancer treatment. The boundless energy of our local Rotarians and other community groups such as Lions and the CWA made it happen, with some help from the government. Local doctor and Rotary member, Paul Moran, said:
Without the Regional Partnerships programme, the Shearwater Lodge could not have been built.
Turning to the environment, we have a tremendous natural environment in the electorate of Cowper, and I make reference to the beautiful environment around the Nambucca River. The program contributed to an estuary management plan to ensure that this resource is maintained in a sustainable way, a way that meets environmental needs, whilst combining that with the needs of the tourism and fishing industries.
Funds have also been provided for the Upper Orara Hall, the Willawarrin Hall, the Orara Valley Pool and the annual Rusty Iron Rally in Macksville. The Ngurrala Woodworking Facility will provide skills and training for Indigenous people in the Nambucca area. I was in Bowraville recently for the acceptance of a grant by the Mimi Mothers Group to provide another new facility in that town.
These are not grandiose, high-profile, multimillion dollar projects. They are projects which have sprung from communities, which have been developed by communities and which improve the way of life in those communities. These are local projects driven by local people. In the light of that, it is hard to see why anyone would want to wind up this program. But that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do. He told the Sunday program in February last year:
... the programme’s got to go. And we’re going to fight like blazes between now and the budget to force them—
being the government—
to cancel this programme.
Happily, as is his habit, he failed in his endeavour in this regard, and Regional Partnerships is still going strongly. But he has never retracted that statement. In fact, he had a splendid opportunity to demonstrate that he had seen the error of his ways when he made a speech on regional policy last weekend—but he didn’t take the opportunity to back down on his promise to get rid of Regional Partnerships.
If it were left to the Leader of the Opposition, there would be no projects like the carers and patients lodge, there would be no projects like the renovation of the Willawarrin Hall and there would be no swimming pool for the Orara Valley. The Leader of the Opposition says this program has got to go, which means over $800 million worth of community projects have got to go. The only plan Labor has for regional Australia is neglect. Its decision to abandon the Regional Partnerships program is proof of that.
This government sees climate change and the reaction to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change as just another piece of political management to be bluffed through until everyone loses interest. We have seen, in my view, an amazing display of complacency from the government, the Prime Minister and his followers. It has been striking, however, that we have not heard much this week from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell. I suspect this is because the minister has actually been persuaded by the experts in his department and by the CSIRO, as well as by the Stern review, of the seriousness of the climate change issue. But, like his predecessor, Senator Hill, as he then was, he is outnumbered by the ‘climate sceptics’ in the cabinet, led in public by the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources—although I think, from my observation, the Prime Minister is still at heart a climate sceptic too.
The honourable member for Grayndler, the shadow minister for the environment, has in these last days—at his passionate best—cut through the complacency of the government frontbench on the climate change issue. For his pains, he has been ridiculed and suspended from the House. Time, however, will prove that he was right. As the Stern review documents, climate change is happening right now. It is affecting our environment, our economy, our society now—today. This situation will only get worse. At the moment it is possible to argue, incorrectly but at least plausibly, that what we are seeing in Australia at present has no connection with climate change but is a normal fluctuation of the climatic cycle.
I am not surprised at the cynicism of the Prime Minister, who is mainly interested in the electoral cycle, in trying to mount superficial scare campaigns over this issue. But I am really astonished at the complacency of backbench members of the government over this issue, particularly those representing rural, regional and coastal seats. Do they think their constituents are enjoying the reality of climate change as it is being experienced in regional Australia at present? Do they think it will have no consequences if it is allowed to go on?
Government members have been lecturing us all week about how they will not sign up to Kyoto because they want to protect jobs in Australia. Let me ask the honourable members for Leichhardt, Herbert and Dawson how their constituents will fare if the Great Barrier Reef is bleached to death by a rise in water temperatures in the Coral Sea. Do they think tourists will come from all over the world to look at dead coral? Have these members read the Stern review? It specifically names the Great Barrier Reef as one of the world’s most vulnerable ecosystems. Page 57 of part II of the review points out that a mere one degree rise in temperatures will cause an 80 per cent bleaching of the world’s coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef. I recommend it to those honourable members.
I represent an urban seat, not one dependent on primary industries or tourism. But climate change is affecting urban Australia too, if not quite as immediately as it has regional Australia. Melbourne’s water supply is at the mercy of regular rainfall in regional Victoria. If our climate is going to move to a hotter and drier phase as a result of climate change, there is obviously going to be less water in our dams. This will affect not only gardens in every house in Melbourne but every aspect of our lives, as well as the ecosystems of the Yarra Valley and Port Phillip.
The Liberal and National parties in Victoria say the solution is to build more dams. But dams will not help if there is not enough rain to fill them. The real solution is to stop climate change before Melbourne’s water supply problems become a crisis. The only way to stop climate change is to radically reduce carbon emissions in accordance with the Kyoto protocol. In the meantime, Melbourne needs to reduce its water consumption, and the Victorian Government led by Steve Bracks is doing an excellent job in this regard, with the program Our Water Our Future. Since 2003, John Thwaites, the Minister for Water, has issued nearly 130,000 rebates to people purchasing water-saving products such as dual-flush toilets, rainwater tanks and grey-water systems. Mr Speaker, we could do with some dual-flush toilets in this parliament. This and other measures of the Victorian government are already saving more than a billion litres of water a year. I commend John Thwaites, who represents the same part of Melbourne that I do, on his leadership in this area.
It is a pity we do not see any leadership on the climate change issue from this federal government. The Prime Minister likes to praise Tony Blair for his courage and leadership, and I certainly agree with him about that. Has the Prime Minister not noticed, however, that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have immediately embraced the Stern review and have committed themselves to the most radical program of emission reduction in the Western world?
I am pleased to see experimental models of geosequestration being set up in Warrnambool. But those are only experiments. Commercial development of these and other technologies will not be widely implemented, thus affecting greenhouse emissions, unless they are economically viable. That is why we need carbon trading. The Australian people will not be fooled by short-term PR announcements about the environment by this government; people know that climate change is happening.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the release this week of the report of the New South Wales Police on the Cronulla riots and subsequent reprisal attacks of December last year. The release of the report has been widely reported in the media—not so much for its content but for the denial of its existence by the New South Wales Minister for Police and his continued attempts to change his story. In the fallout from Mr Scully’s sacking from the ministry it is easy to forget the real issue at hand—that is, the chronic underresourcing of New South Wales Police by the New South Wales government.
The report tells us that Morris Iemma and Carl Scully were briefed on the Thursday three days before the riots. The briefing advised them that racially motivated violence was almost certain, with a risk rating of ‘high’. It also classified the likelihood of large-scale affray and riot as ‘likely’, with the consequences of that being ‘major’. There is no doubt that Morris Iemma and Carl Scully were clearly advised that a major disturbance would take place at Cronulla Beach on Sunday, 11 December. Yet the next day Iemma and Scully held a press conference at Cronulla reassuring local residents that their beach would be safe from violence over the weekend. It is disgraceful that the New South Wales Premier and Minister for Police would assure people of their safety only one day after being warned that a large-scale affray and riot was ‘likely’.
The New South Wales government clearly learned no lessons from Macquarie Fields. The underresourcing of the police, despite clear warnings of the events at Cronulla, was so rife that protective equipment was not available to all first-response police. The report says, ‘When requests were made for protective equipment, there was an expected lengthy delay in its delivery because of the situation that existed in other areas.’ Regardless of the situation in other areas, the bottom line is that the New South Wales government cannot even provide protective equipment to all members of its first-response police. The report further stated that there was evidence of injuries to police who responded to potentially volatile situations without protective equipment.
Despite the warnings, despite the fact that it was almost certain that racially motivated violence would occur, only 47 police were posted at Cronulla on the day. Late on the evening of Sunday, 11 December, the highway patrols cars manning Tom Ugly’s Bridge, Captain Cook Bridge and Alfords Point Bridge were taken off the bridges and called into Brighton-le-Sands to deal with the fallout there. This allowed convoys of cars to enter Cronulla and engage in revenge attacks. Again, despite the magnitude of the riots that day, the area continued to be inadequately manned throughout the night.
I have said time and time again that the Cronulla Police Station has been slowly bled of resources by the Carr-Iemma government. It has gone from a fully fledged, book-and-charge station to nothing more than a shopfront. This has allowed a total lack of action on bullying, intimidation and antisocial behaviour at the beach. Over time, this has been allowed to escalate into what we witnessed in December last year. The Labor government’s failure to adequately resource New South Wales Police has sorely affected my local community. They have allowed the closure of police stations all over the state, and the downsizing of many just like in Cronulla. They have been unable to respond to crises with enough officers on the ground and they cannot even provide enough equipment for the safety of their own riot police.
This report highlights the courage of individual police officers in the face of extremely dangerous conditions. Those officers who put their own physical safety at risk to save victims from mobs of rioters are worthy of the strongest praise. The report says that the lack of serious or fatal injuries to victims can be attributed to the actions of the individual police who appeared to have no regard for their own safety. Their bravery undoubtedly saved lives, and I would like to commend them for their selfless service to the public of New South Wales.
The bravery and the meritorious service of the police on this day and the days following are not in question. On the other hand, the New South Wales government has abjectly failed the community in allowing police resources to dwindle. It learned nothing from Macquarie Fields, it showed no regard for the warnings of the police three days before the riots and it allowed this to happen by completely ignoring the needs of the Cronulla area for many years. Both I and the state member for Cronulla have warned publicly on many occasions that we were inadequately policed. Often there are only 15 police at the station in Cronulla to deal with the very large community that comes to the beach on a regular basis on the weekends. It is totally inadequate, and it is not surprising that we saw this result. It is time that the Iemma government learned the lessons of the past and provided the necessary policing resources in the state of New South Wales.
The issue of climate change is an issue of enormous importance to all Australians. I would like to demonstrate this by talking about two emails that I have received. The first email started with the line:
... I have been a supporter of the Liberal-Country Party for a long time, but I have to admit that my support is very much with Kim Beasley in expressing dismay at the response of the Prime Minister re the Stern Report on Global Warming today.
The author says that he is ‘amazed and disappointed’ that the government has failed to support people in their endeavours to get the greenest possible cars and that its support has only come in the conversion of cars as opposed to incentives and support for people like himself who have chosen and bought cars in a very sensible way because they are ‘very green’ cars. He says that he is very disappointed in the way the government has handled the issue of ethanol. He finishes by saying that he will certainly support the Labor Party if it continues to give strong leadership in regard to climate change.
The writer of the other email that I received said ‘Howard has now handed the ALP the next election because of his attitude to climate change’—provided that the Labor Party support renewable and sustainable energy, which we do, and take a ‘no nuclear’ approach, which we certainly support. He goes on to say that we should all be doing more about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He feels in relation to Kyoto that the Prime Minister has shown that he is ‘a follower not a leader’ and is prepared to be as mediocre as possible rather than showing leadership. He concludes his email by saying:
Good luck. We can't afford to have another federal Liberal government.
Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.
The following notices were given:
to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to the management of Commonwealth radioactive waste, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006)
to move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 30 October 2006, namely: Reconciliation Place artworks, Parkes.
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: Redevelopment of the propellant manufacturing facility at Mulwala.
to move:
That the House:
I rise today to pay tribute to a school in my electorate, Croydon Hills Primary School, which has a fantastic record of environmental education. Recently it received an Australian government community water grant of $45,000 to install a rainwater tank at the school which will be used for a number of water-saving initiatives throughout the school, including the watering of a vegetable garden that the students tend to as well as a number of other of initiatives around the school. This is part of a longstanding program led by the principal, Graeme Caudry, at the school and it will involve a number of students right across all of the years at the school.
The changes that have taken place at Croydon Hills Primary School will see two million litres of water saved every year. I had the pleasure of going out to the school to see firsthand what they have done with their grant and to meet some of the students: Jaydn, Maria, Emily, Allegra, Georgia, Kelsey and Caitlyn. Those students play a leadership role in an environmental sense. Some of them are water watchers and meter readers. In addition to the water tank, the school is active in promoting a good environment and good environmental practices around the school, including the saving of water at taps and the reuse of water throughout the school on the gardens and in the vegetable patch. I pay tribute to Croydon Hills Primary School for all that they do for the local environment and to the students, teachers and parents involved.
Last Saturday evening, I had the distinct honour to attend the annual presentation night for the Western Suburbs District Junior Rugby League. It was a fantastic night, attended by over 400 people representing every rugby league club within the district. The night was to recognise champions amongst the code. I had the very distinct honour to make a special presentation of the sports achievement award to a person nominated by the board of the junior league as having made an outstanding contribution to the code.
For the past 22 years, Paul Lake has been a dedicated volunteer to junior rugby league assisting children and their families within the community. In 1989, he was largely instrumental in forming the Western Suburbs District Junior Rugby League board and was subsequently appointed chairman of that board, a position that he held until 1999. His achievements and commitment to the sport and to the youth of the area were recognised in 1996 when he was awarded life membership of the Western Suburbs District Junior Rugby League.
Because of other commitments, unfortunately, he resigned from the junior rugby league in 2004, but nevertheless he had a very big year. Paul Lake was elected that year to the board of Western Suburbs Leagues Club as a director. He was appointed delegate to the Western Suburbs Leagues Club sports council. He was appointed to the board of Wests Tigers, which was the premiership-winning side in 2005. If that was not enough, Paul was also elected in 2004 as a councillor on the Campbelltown City Council, where, amongst other things, he continued to play a strong role in supporting the youth of our region and recognising the efforts of many volunteers who are the backbone of junior sport regardless of the code. He is also a delegate to the South West Academy of Sport.
In 2005, Paul Lake was elected Deputy Mayor of Campbelltown City Council. Notwithstanding that he had formally resigned from the board of the junior league, Paul still turned up on weekends to assist all those volunteers without whose effort local sport, particularly sport in relation to the youth of the area, would not take place. Paul Lake is a genuine friend to junior sport and all those who make it possible. To quote the words of the CEO of the junior league, Mrs Julie Luke, who nominated Paul Lake for the Australian Sports Achievement Award:
It is difficult to put everything down that Mr Lake has done and continues to do for the community of Campbelltown, but rest assured he is a man who we respect and he is our friend.
(Time expired)
I rise today to speak about the Flinders Medical Centre and its proposal for a centre for innovation in cancer. The Flinders Medical Centre is an important institution in Adelaide’s southern suburbs. It is a 500-bed teaching hospital, which has 3,500 staff and also 500 volunteers, making this the largest volunteer group of any hospital in Adelaide. It has expertise in a range of cancers and is world renowned for its work in leukaemia, bowel cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and oesophageal cancer.
The Flinders Medical Centre proposes to establish a centre for innovation in cancer care. This would be a centre which groups together clinicians and researchers and which would focus on being a centre of excellence in the prevention of cancer through approaches such as population screening, in which it has particular expertise. Australia does not have a cancer centre of this sort, although there are some cancer centres in the United States which adopt this approach. This would be a great facility for residents of the southern suburbs. As a public hospital doctor, a former surgical registrar, I know that when a hospital has a good research function and the clinicians are involved in research you do see excellence in care. This would be a good thing for my constituents.
This proposal for a centre is expected to cost over $20 million. It is a very important priority for my constituents, and I will be working to see that the federal government makes a contribution to the Flinders cancer centre so that we can have this fantastic facility for the southern suburbs. In my electorate of Boothby we have a very high proportion of people over 65. It is an elderly population and, as a consequence, there is a prevalence of cancer. This would be a tremendous facility to add to what is already an outstanding public hospital.
Last night over 1,200 people attended the Crown Palladium for a celebration of people with disabilities. People with disabilities participated in organising the night, which was to raise money to build a $4.5 million new facility at Glen Eira for 15 adults with disabilities, plus respite care for families and carers and facilities for socialising.
The name of the project is ‘Building a Place Called Home’. Robyne Schwarz, the passionate head of Jewish Care, who is leading this proposal, describes this $4.5 million redevelopment of the Glen Eira properties as something that will offer regular respite for adults living within the community as well as a permanent place for people to live. The proposed development underscores Jewish Care’s commitment to growing and expanding disability services. New services will be created with the redevelopment, which will allow more adults with high and specialised needs to be cared for in some of Jewish Care’s existing facilities.
I want to pay tribute to Naomi Milgrom, who not only is deservedly a leader in business but also was sharing her wider social responsibility, was patron of the night and—like Robyne Schwarz and all of the team at Jewish Care, including Louise Zygier and Richard Zimmermann, the director of development—is leading this wonderful effort to see that Jewish Care’s facilities in this crucial area are expanded.
What was most impressive about last night was not only the support pledged by individuals, including the Pratt Foundation and the Victorian government—John Brumby, the Treasurer, was there pledging $150,000 over five years and some money towards support services—but the involvement of volunteers and people with disabilities from the homes themselves. It was led by Lenny Gross, a local businessman whom I know well—I am often in his shop, Lenny’s. There was a wonderful presentation of drumming by people with disabilities. Lenny apparently told the function last night—my better half, Amanda, attended—that there is more to life than just business. That is what his wife told him. He therefore got out into the community and is working twice a week with adults with disabilities and giving them something creative to do. He led this drumming, which made a great impression on people last night.
I am very proud to be associated with Jewish Care. Bruce Salvin and Alan Schwarz, who are involved in the aged-care aspect of Jewish Care, are doing wonderful work in ensuring the modernisation of the facilities in St Kilda Road and their transfer, partially at least, to the Caulfield aged-care facility in Kooyong Road. I pay great tribute to them. I have recognised with seniors awards some of their volunteers involved in transporting and socialising with older residents in care. Lois Carson, Andor Friebert, Alex Grossman, Harry Greenberg, Bronka Kaplan, Neomy Reuben, Sorin Ronea, Alex Sage, Fred Weiss, Masha Zeleznikow and Noemi Fooks are some of the many people who are doing wonderful work for that wonderful organisation. (Time expired)
I thought I might just spend a moment advising the parliament of some events in my electorate last week. It was a great week for Townsville and a great week for the government. First of all, I was privileged to take the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to the Heatley High School in Townsville. I might say that, over the years, Heatley has not enjoyed the most wonderful of reputations. It is in a very difficult socioeconomic area of the city, but I came away truly inspired by the young students who were there giving evidence to the committee and by the leadership of the principal, Bill Sperring, and his staff. If the students at Heatley are the future of Australia, then our country is in very good hands indeed.
I had a visit the next day from Gary Hardgrave, the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. He was there to see progress on what he described and what I believe is the most outstanding Australian technical college in Australia. Under the leadership of John Bearne and his group, the technical college, which was originally contracted to take on 100 students in January of next year on a greenfields site, will now take on 160 and it is looking to do more as well.
I then had a visit by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley—a bit of an embarrassing visit for the Leader of the Opposition. He went to Labor heartland—to the meatworks in Townsville—and he was booed by the workers. That is just quite extraordinary. At the same time, he found that the state government was supporting Work Choices. I thank the Beattie government for their support, as they have now realised that Work Choices is the way ahead for Australia.
Finally, I had a visit from Joe Hockey, the Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations. I took Joe and the CEO of Centrelink Australia, Jeff Whalan, to Centrelink Aitkenvale. Before we went in the door, I said to both of them: ‘Understand this: this is the best Centrelink office in Australia.’ After the visit, where I conducted them around Centrelink, the minister turned to me and he said: ‘I now know what you mean. This is the best Centrelink in Australia.’ Of course, he was also in the call centre run by Rick Finerty. The call centre in Townsville has just recently been nominated as Australia’s best Centrelink call centre. So I have to say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is all happening in the north. We very proud of what we do up there. We could show you southerners a thing or two.
Recently I was pleased to host, together with the honourable member for Fremantle, a visit to Australia by Mr David Kilgour, a former Canadian secretary of state, and Mr Edward McMillan-Scott, the Vice-President of the European Parliament. Mr Kilgour and Mr David Matas, a respected Canadian jurist, recently authored a report into alleged organ harvesting in China. It is a compelling report and I commend it to all honourable members.
We owe Mr Kilgour and Mr Matas a debt not only for the time they have spent researching and writing the report but also for their advocacy throughout the world. They have been to many countries throughout the world, with no remuneration to themselves, spreading the word of their report. The report is methodical and exhaustive. Given that they were denied visas to enter China to conduct their investigations, it was very difficult research to conduct, but they did it in a way which adds to the integrity of the report. The authors came to the conclusion that the allegations of organ harvesting in China are true. They write this:
We have concluded that the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and ‘people’s courts’, since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience.
This is a very chilling conclusion. If these allegations are true, it would represent evil the likes of which we have not seen in the world in the last 60 years.
I would characterise the report as not proving the allegations but establishing a case to answer. The report does not find that the allegations are proven but does provide a very compelling case for the Chinese government to answer. I would call on the Chinese government to allow investigators into China to prove or disprove these allegations. There is a move to have various parliaments from around the world send delegations into China. If the Chinese government believes that these allegations are untrue, they should have no problem in granting visas to those delegations.
When the world heard of the atrocities of Nazi Germany, many people did not believe the allegations because they were too frightening and it was not accepted that human beings could do this to one another. Of course, history has shown us that they were true. Many people have a similar reaction to these allegations. I must say that it was my initial reaction: I thought the allegations must be overblown; I thought they could not be true.
But there is a case to answer. I am not one who calls for the Olympics to be removed from China, but in the lead-up to the Olympics I call on China. I believe we should use the Olympics to spread the word of human rights and democracy in China. I call on the Chinese government to cooperate. (Time expired)
On this beautiful day in Canberra, I want to take the opportunity to add my total support to the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of the federal government’s intention to help fund chaplains in schools. This is a good news story and a very important development in the way in which we offer help for the wellbeing and support of students throughout Australian schools.
As honourable members know, the Prime Minister recently announced that we will invest up to $30 million annually for three years to support chaplains in schools by making available a payment of up to $20,000. What is important about this initiative is that we will support schools that do not have a chaplain by allowing them to apply for this program. Schools that have a chaplain can also apply for the $20,000 payment to help fund this important role within schools.
Today in the parliament I particularly want to acknowledge and inform the parliament about a great chaplaincy service that has been going on in my electorate of Aston for a number of years. I refer particularly to the Knox Chaplaincy Committee, which supports the chaplain at a great secondary college in Aston, Scoresby Secondary College. A chaplain was introduced at Scoresby Secondary College in 1989. Until last year, Scoresby was the only school supporting a chaplain in my region. I want the parliament to know that the chaplain is highly valued in the school, for many reasons. A primary focus of the chaplain’s role, of course, is pastoral care. The chaplain affirms and listens to students and seeks to empower them to make life choices—important choices. Where appropriate, the chaplain encourages students to reflect on the spiritual dimension of life and is able to affirm students in their faith and encourage them to build strong relationships with and within their faith communities. Most importantly, the chaplain assists students—and not only students, but also the staff at the school, because quite often they need support—in the areas of grief, loss, family breakdown, anger management, bullying, self-esteem, motivation and all those important dynamics that are needed in this day and age.
I have attended Scoresby Secondary College many times and I know the chaplain there. I have seen firsthand the wonderful work that she has done in the Scoresby Secondary College school community. It is for that reason that I know that the recent announcement by the federal government of new funding for school chaplains in Australian schools is a positive, much-needed development that will help people. I am very pleased to see this development. (Time expired)
On Tuesday last week, the Labor Party’s industrial relations task force visited Devonport, Tasmania to talk to small businesses and workers who have been affected adversely by Work Choices. The member for Fraser and I met with a number of locals. I would like to pay particular regard today to two residents of north-west Tasmania. Firstly, I would like to refer to Phil Upton, who was employed by United Petroleum. We met with Phil Upton and his wife. Phil had been employed by the previous owner of the company, which was subsequently bought by United Petroleum. After the sale, Phil Upton was asked to sign an Australian workplace agreement which reduced his hourly rate by more than $4.50 per hour and removed all penalty rates and overtime rates that were in his previous agreement. This reduced his weekly earnings by almost $200 per week—an awful blow to a working Tasmanian. Through the transfer of the business he was compelled to consider taking such drastic cuts to his conditions of employment. All the member for Braddon can say is, ‘We now have restored power in the hands of the employers, where it belongs.’ That is a direct quote from the member for Braddon when he remarked upon Work Choices legislation in this place.
The other person I would like to refer to is Kees Van Ek. Kees Van Ek is an owner of a civil engineering company, Van Ek Contracting. He employs approximately 100 employees in north-west Tasmania. In 1998 Kees Van Ek and his company entered into Australian workplace agreements for one year, after which he chose, as did his employees, not to enter into AWAs ever again. It was very interesting to talk to Mr Van Ek. He talked to us about the fact that he did not believe you needed to cut conditions of employment to ensure that there were high productivity levels in his company. He found that AWAs were reducing cooperation amongst his workforce. There was distrust as a result of placing people on separate contracts. Instead, since 1999, he has engaged with the delegates of his workforce and entered into collective agreements. He believes Work Choices is not necessary. He believes AWAs are unfair, ineffective and unproductive. The two examples of Mr Upton and Mr Van Ek show us that Work Choices is not working for small businesses and employees in north-west Tasmania—or anywhere else for that matter. (Time expired)
Last Thursday evening I had the privilege of participating in SBS’s Insight program. They ran a forum detailing and exploring the different complexities involved with native title. These complexities were compounded recently following a decision made with respect to the Noongar people in Western Australia. My involvement in the program was precipitated by the fact that on the Gold Coast the Eastern Yugambeh people have put in a claim over 1,000 square kilometres of area from the Beenleigh River south to the Tweed border. On this basis and in accordance with previous comments I have made, I was asked to participate in the Insight program to share some of my concerns, which I know are held by a number of Gold Coast developers, as well as more broadly by the community, over the potential problems that could arise if this Eastern Yugambeh people’s claim over the Gold Coast is successful.
When you get to the core issue, you see that following the recent decision there is at this point in time—subject, of course, to appeal—an extension of the operation of native title, such that now a continuing connection with the land can be established over unallocated crown land, even though historically it may have been thought that the use of that land was inconsistent with the continuing existence of native title. For an area like the Gold Coast, I have a high degree of cynicism over the nature of the claim by Wesley Aird and the Eastern Yugambeh people, in particular when we are talking about some of the most prime real estate in Australia. Furthermore, for an area such as The Spit, which comes off Main Beach and is in the heart of my electorate, I am greatly concerned that what is in fact being sought is an opportunity to seek compensation for the Eastern Yugambeh people.
I highlight that the Aboriginal community on the Gold Coast is not unified in this claim. The Kombumerri clan in fact claim that the Eastern Yugambeh clan are not traditional owners of this area of land. That, of course, will be tested, but I would like to put on the record in parliament my cynicism over the exact reason for this claim. I would challenge Wesley Aird and others who are members of the Eastern Yugambeh community to highlight to the Gold Coast community what it is that they seek—whether it is recognition that they were the traditional owners and that is all; or perhaps my cynicism is well founded and, in fact, this is a claim built around seeking compensation to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. (Time expired)
Members would be aware of the tremendous success that Australia’s national hockey teams, the Hockeyroos and the Kookaburras, have had over the last 20 years, whether that has been at the Olympics, at World Cups, at Champions Trophy tournaments or at the Commonwealth Games. Hockey insiders know that very much of this tremendous national success is as a result of Hockey Australia’s High-Performance program, which since 1984—for the last 22 years—has been based at the Perth Hockey Stadium near Curtin University in Perth. Hockey Australia is now reviewing where the home of Hockey Australia’s High-Performance program will be, and I understand the Hockey Australia board will make a decision about this matter at its meeting at the end of November.
I am gravely concerned that the board will make a decision to move the Hockey Australia’s High-Performance program from Perth, where it is currently based. In Perth, where it has been for the last 22 years, it has access to great sports science through the Western Australian Institute of Sport, which has outstanding sports science capacity. The Western Australian government is strongly supportive of the program, as is Hockey WA and the Western Australian community, which has the nation’s highest per capita number of hockey participants.
I was very concerned to see during Senate estimates yesterday the Australian Sports Commission, and to a lesser extent the Minister for the Arts and Sport, essentially saying this was entirely a matter for Hockey Australia. It is extraordinary to me that neither the Australian Sports Commission nor the minister would see any national or public interest in where the Hockey Australia’s High-Performance program would be. To simply stand by and say this is entirely a matter for Hockey Australia is, to me, an abrogation of responsibility and puts at risk our continuing success as a nation in hockey at the highest level. I urge the Australian Sports Commission and the minister not to stand idly by but to take an interest in where Hockey Australia’s High-Performance program is situated.
I do not mount this argument because I happen to be from Perth. The program does not operate in my electorate. I mount this argument because I think our ongoing success as a nation in the sport of hockey is important, and that will be put at risk if, for no good reason, the program is moved from where it has been based for the last 22 years. I have heard two arguments as to why it might be moved. One is that a move to the eastern seaboard will allow greater corporate sponsorship. If there is to be any corporate sponsorship for hockey, it will not be as a result of where the program is based; it will be as a result of a brand name. The second argument is that more of the players now originate from the east. I do not care where Australian hockey players start; I care where they end—and I want them to end where they have been for the last 22 years: successful, high-performance performers at the national level bringing credit to our nation. (Time expired)
In accordance with sessional order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 31 October, on motion by Mr McGauran:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Burke 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:
I am pleased today to speak on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. It has been my privilege since I have been in this parliament to be the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and also the chair of the government members’ committee on migration, multicultural and Indigenous affairs, so I have a good deal of interest in this area of government policy.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10.01 am to 10.14 am
As I said, I am very pleased to speak on this citizenship bill because it gives me the opportunity to talk about Australian citizenship. Given my strong interest in migration, I certainly want to put a number of things on the record.
As we know, Australia is a country that has been built on migration—orderly migration. I go, as many members and senators do, to lots of citizenship ceremonies in my electorate. We hear many and varied stories of why people migrate to Australia and how they migrate to Australia and about all the nuances that come with migration. We hear many people wax lyrical at the beginning of their speeches about the first migrants to Australia, not forgetting, of course, the initial migration waves of Aboriginals many years ago. However, in the debate that has ensued in this country in recent times about people arriving by boat, it is always quite humorous at citizenship ceremonies to reflect on the fact that people who arrived by boat in the first instance were very unwilling participants as they arrived in convict ships et cetera.
However, since then Australia’s migration has been built largely on orderly migration, but it was quite unregulated in the first instance. As we know, largely the big migration pulls to this country after the initial free settlement were due to gold rushes. We know that this happened in Victoria, in Ballarat and regions like that. Of course, in Kalgoorlie there were enormous ramifications to the population of the Western Australian state due to the migration to the goldfields, and it had a very large influence on the federation. Most Western Australians at the turn of the century did not want to be part of the rest of Australia. However, the goldfields miners—who in some respects outnumbered the rest of the population of Western Australia—were ‘t’othersiders’, as they were called. They had come from the eastern states, even though they were probably new migrants themselves, and saw great benefits in Australia being one nation and one country and they voted eventually, largely from the goldfields, for Australia to join the federation.
I digress to point out that there have been many migration waves to this country, as there have been many migration waves throughout the rest of the world. I was privileged to be in New York some years ago and visited Ellis Island, which is an absolute eye-opener when you realise that five million postwar migrants went through that transitional facility on Ellis Island and have built the America that we know today, largely on what you would generally call unregulated migration. The only real check that I saw as I went through the museum there was that, if you had palsy or very obvious body defects, they put you on a ship and sent you home. Other than that, if your teeth were sound and you looked pretty healthy, you were allowed in. Migrants then dispersed throughout the United States. So the world has been made up of migration flows all over the place.
However, Australia is seen as a prime destination for migration—and why not? Albeit that we have suffered extremes of flood, drought, fire and famine in our history, Australia is still the land of plenty and still the land of opportunity. There is an enormous number of people who wish to come and take the benefits of this country, as they do. They want a place to bring their families up. Australia is still an opportunity. As I said, when you go to the citizenship ceremonies in the local councils, you see people from places like Zimbabwe, where people, both black and white, are oppressed. They want to come to Australia because they see Australia as an opportunity of bringing their children up and giving them a way of life that you can rarely get in any other part of the world. You do not have to be rich; you do not have to be privileged; you just have to be motivated enough to work in this country, and there is a good chance you will make it if you do that.
On the basis of those few observations, I would like to mention that the purpose of this citizenship bill is to replace the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. The related bill puts into place the transitional and consequential amendments necessary for the introduction of this citizenship bill. The legislation does a number of things. In referring to the 1948 act, it needs to be pointed out that in 57 years this 1948 act has been amended 36 times. Some of them have been minor amendments and some have been quite major amendments. For example, there have been amendments about referring to husbands and wives, about requirements for residents who might be deemed aliens and about residency requirements in time parameters of two years for aliens. There have also been amendments about the fact that we deemed that, if you became an Australian citizen, you were not really a British citizen. We know that that is a hangover from our settlement as a British colony; the residency requirements were such that you ceased to be a British subject.
One of the more significant amendments in recent times concerned section 44 of the Constitution. On my first foray through this parliament in 1996, as the member for Swan, I was pleased to sit on the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I was surprised to be on the committee given that I had no legal background, but the chair at that time, one Kevin Andrews, told me that it was probably a benefit not to have any preconceived legal ability. I found some of the inquiries quite interesting. One of the inquiries we did was into section 44 of the Constitution. We know that people in this country who had not renounced their citizenship were forbidden to do several things. One example concerned the member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly. She had not renounced her New Zealand citizenship; as a result, she was required to go to another election, which she duly won—and we are very proud of the fact she did.
One of the amendments that came in in 2002 was that you could retain dual citizenship. Dual citizenship has been quite a benefit to many people because it allows you to retain the citizenship of the country of your origin as well as gaining Australian citizenship. This has not been popular with everyone. I have had people in my electorate say to me, ‘Look, you are either one thing or another.’ In recent times it caused a fair bit of public comment when the war in Lebanon revealed that 60,000-odd people who have Australian citizenship live in Lebanon. When the war between Hezbollah and Israel blew up in recent months, many Lebanese with Australian citizenship demanded that the Australian government remove them from Lebanon, which the government did to the best of its ability. I suppose one of the benefits of having dual citizenship is that you can go back and live in a country of your choice while still retaining all the benefits of Australian citizenship. As I said, it is a benefit to some, but it is an area of contention for others.
It does make it easier for many people. When I go to citizenship ceremonies, I find that there are many and varied reasons why people have decided to become Australian citizens. With some people, particularly refugees or asylum seekers who are seeking Australian citizenship, as soon as the two-year permanent residency requirement is up and they can apply for Australian citizenship, they do. With people of Asian or East Asian origin in particular, as soon as they qualify to be able to apply for Australian citizenship, quite often they do; they cherish the fact that they can become a citizen of this country.
However, on the other side of the coin, I personally get annoyed with people who decide that they do not ever want to become an Australian citizen. That is their choice. I do not criticise their choice, but from a personal point of view I would like to think that people who find Australia home and gain an economic benefit for themselves and their families might make a commitment.
As an aside, I was quite cross the other day when I was given a lift in a car to the airport. The lady who was driving me had retained her New Zealand citizenship; she said that she had no intention of ever becoming an Australian citizen because she did not see any benefit in it. I explained to her that I have had people come to my electorate office about this. In one case this involved a lady of New Zealand origin whose spouse had died. I explained that, unless she hurried up and became an Australian citizen, some entitlements—like pensions and the ability for people who might want to look after her to receive carer payments—might not flow to her. She duly went out and sought Australian citizenship.
So it is not just the fact that it is something nice to have; there are some benefits that come with it. People always snigger when they are told they cannot run for the Australian parliament unless they become a citizen of Australia, but that is the ultimate aspiration in many respects. Why not represent the people of the country in which you choose to live? I am very proud to be a member of this House, and I am sure that the people and their children who come here would be of a similar view.
This bill takes into account a number of things, and one of them is that people applying for Australian citizenship—not those who are already in the queue for permanent residency; they are quarantined or ‘grandfathered’, which is probably one of the better terms—will now have to wait for four years. I do not see a problem with that, because it gives a number of opportunities for people waiting in the queue. It gives them an opportunity to get their affairs in order.
In a four- to five-year period people come and go from the country, and they may stay overseas for long periods, up to 12 months, but we are saying now that in the last 12 months before you become an Australian citizen you cannot be out of the country for more than three months. I think this is only fair. To give an example as to why, I have been helping some people from the Ukraine to come to Australia. The wife is here with her two children, and that is fine, but the husband has found that it is easier to make money elsewhere in the world. As a result, he is finding it difficult to spend much time in Australia. You cannot have it both ways—you have to commit yourself to Australia, and that requires you to stay here for some time rather than just warehousing your family here. This is one of the things that this bill addresses. You cannot just warehouse your family in a safe haven like Australia and then decide that you are going to be an international businessman and not invest or spend any time in Australia. I think that requirement is very good.
The other requirement is that you have a proficient level of English. Some people see this as contentious; I do not. I will give you an example I was confronted with as a councillor for the city of Belmont. At a citizenship ceremony, the mayor was to confer citizenship on a lady, and he asked her to repeat the citizenship pledge. Firstly, she did not even know what the mayor was talking about; and, secondly, she could not even repeat it. The mayor was pretty determined not to give her citizenship, but the person from the Australian Electoral Office and other officers came up to him and said: ‘You can’t do that. You have to bestow citizenship on this lady whether she can speak English or not.’
That is confronting for many Australians, because a number of people came to Australia under the family reunion program. In fact, the previous government had a far greater focus on family reunion than does this government. But we know that our priorities are to bring a greater skills demographic to this country to enable a greater contribution. The family reunion system was rorted somewhat in that, if you bought somebody from an ageing demographic into the country, the chances of their speaking English was pretty remote and their chances of getting a job without any English were almost next to nothing.
The report of a recent inquiry into skilled migration by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration clearly pointed out that those who come to Australia without sufficient English proficiency were multiples of disadvantage behind those who speak English. Inasmuch as the Australian government provides somewhere around 500 hours of free tuition to learn English, many people do not take this up.
We can understand the refugee and humanitarian components. We bring something like 12,000 to 14,000 people to Australia under the refugee program. Many of them use the opportunity to learn English because they know how important it is to get a job, but for somebody who wishes to come to Australia, to make a contribution and to use the benefits of being an Australian citizen, having proficiency in English is something that I think is quite understandable. We are not saying that they have to arrive here speaking fluent English, but they must make an effort within that two-year period—now the four-year period—to learn English to demonstrate their bona fides and commitment to this country.
One of the other important aspects of this bill is that it strengthens the ability to secure personal identifiers. Very seldom do we deport anybody—and it is obviously very difficult to deport anybody who has gained Australian citizenship—but one of things that this bill does allow is some discretion with the fact that if people have gained citizenship by fraud—and I do not think anybody could question this—then the chance of you staying here should be reduced. I had a case of this recently through my electorate office where the person concerned, without giving any more details other than saying that they were of Indian origin, had actually borrowed the qualifications of a cousin to come to Australia under a certain subclass of visa. Borrowing the qualifications and then touting them as their own as a skilled migrant in order to stay here is obviously fraudulent and should not be tolerated. You are setting the agenda of the sort of person you are in that you came here by dishonest means and, if that is your modus operandi, who is to say you are not going to continue in that vein of life in trying to attract the rest of your family here on that basis? Personal identifiers are obviously something that we want to use to maintain and protect the integrity of the Australian citizenship process.
This bill explicitly provides that the minister must be satisfied of the applicant’s identity before an application can be approved. Personal identifiers—namely photographs and signatures—are already collected, stored and used. The new personal identifier division provides a legislative framework for the management of those identifiers which can be responded to for future decisions. Obviously technological developments are being used for proof of identity. One of the great things about the Australian migration system is its integrity. Unlike the British, for example, we know who comes into this country and when they leave. The Brits would give their right arm to be able to tell who comes and goes out of their country. They do not have the same strong database and the ability to check that Australia has, which has ramifications in places like Britain, France and many other European countries.
I will finish by saying that this citizenship bill addresses a number of anomalies that have been amended over a number of years. I maintain the fact that Australian citizenship is a privilege bestowed on those who want to make a better life for themselves and their families and should be enshrined and protected as we are doing today in the Main Committee.
I too rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. We are speaking in the Main Committee under a false assumption. The opposition had agreed to the extension of the residential qualifying period from two to three years and, suddenly, at the last minute we have an extension from two to four years. The agreement to extend this period to three years was on the basis of security concerns originally brought to us in 2005 as the key component for this change and to have greater scrutiny and checks. We have had no reason offered as to why the three-year period has suddenly been extended to four years. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have offered no evidence for the rationale. If there is a security rationale, perhaps it should be brought forward, but that has not been the case.
In Senate estimates last night, it was revealed that 117,208 people have been processed for citizenship using the old system since the government came to the ALP and said that, as a matter of security, we needed to increase the period from two to three years so there could be greater security checks and so that people could be excluded if they were deemed to be inappropriate. This was an agreement made not only by the opposition but also by COAG under a 10-point plan.
A year on, miraculously, those people have been allowed in. Obviously the security concern may have waned, but we have now gone from three to four years without a rationale except that we are now whipping up a frenzy. We are now going into election mode and we are finding the next dog whistle issue with which to lash out at the public to make them scared.
When I was running for parliament for the first time eight years ago, in 1998—taking from the Liberals a seat they held near and dear, which I have managed to hold on to for three terms—the term the government were using was that they were going ‘to govern for all of us’. This bill clearly indicates that they have given up that mantra and they do not want to govern for all of us. They just want to govern for a select few, for the few they deem worthy of becoming Australian citizens.
The other thing the Prime Minister was good at saying at that time was that he wanted us all to be ‘relaxed and comfortable’, that somehow under a Liberal government we would all be relaxed and comfortable, and then we progressed to being ‘alert but not alarmed’. Now we are all to be alarmed. We are all to be alarmist, we are all to be concerned and we are all to be fearful of the ‘other’—people who are not quite like us, who are somehow just a little different from us.
The latest hoo-ha has been over Sheikh Hilali’s comments, which I abhor and denounce. Somehow we did not abhor and denounce such comments when they were made by judges in our courts over rape trials. We did not abhor and denounce them as ‘other’. We said: ‘That’s just generational. Men of that generation see it like that.’ Now it is religious ideology to see it like that. Yes, those comments are abhorrent, but somehow we can wave them off with men, probably of the Prime Minister’s generation, by saying that that is generational. We did not abhor those comments. We did not demean the people who made them. When judges in courts were making the same sorts of comments about rape, we said, ‘Maybe they just need a bit of re-education.’ But things have progressed; things have changed. Instead, we now demonise and say that these people are ‘other’, that their religion is different, that it is not a faith, that it is not a belief and that it is not a system.
The only good faith and belief system nowadays is obviously Christianity! Coming from a Christian background, I find that really quite ridiculous. Nowadays I am told that the only true faith, the only faith which has a rationale and a moral basis is Christianity. Generally when I am sitting next to my Buddhist mayor or opposite my Hindu friend, I find it outrageous that people do not see that as demeaning to all these people who have come to our country, have embraced our country and have taken on the rights and responsibilities of our nation. I do not see how people cannot see through the rhetoric of all this and see how demeaning it is to those people and to those faiths that somehow the Sikhs in the temple down the road from me do not have values or morals. I find that really quite abhorrent, as do I find some of this bill abhorrent, although we will be supporting it in this place because it has beneficial parts that finally make up for some issues where people have been treated badly. I put on the record my reservation about the increase from two to four years.
I go to a lot of citizenship ceremonies within my electorate in the two municipalities of Monash and Whitehorse. They conduct fantastic ceremonies. They are always joyous occasions. In my electorate, anywhere between 30 and 36 per cent of the residents were born overseas. They come from a variety of backgrounds. We have traditional Greeks and Italians in fairly large numbers. We have a very large and growing Chinese community and Indochinese community who see themselves as Chinese but predominantly are from Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. And we have a very large Sri Lankan community made up of two groups of Sri Lankans, which is always entertaining. This means I get to go to a lot of multicultural events, I get to eat a lot of good food and I get to do a lot of dancing, which is always fun. This is what has made our country great and vibrant.
So I was a little taken aback earlier this year, around Australia Day, when Peter Costello, the Treasurer, came out and slammed ‘mushy’ multiculturalism. He had a go at Johan Scheffer, one of our upper house state members. I read Johan’s speech and thought at the time that it sounded like 900 per cent of immigration speeches I have heard most people make. Why is the Treasurer suddenly finding this abhorrent? I am sure that if the Treasurer had turned up once or twice to the Boroondara citizenship ceremony prior to his comments on Australia Day he might have made similar comments to those of Johan Scheffer. I am damned sure that if we went through records we would find that he has.
To claim that current multiculturalism puts too much emphasis on telling migrants not to give up their culture rather than emphasising the Australian way of life is abhorrent. Every time I begin a citizenship ceremony speech I say, ‘Thank you for honouring us by becoming Australian citizens.’ What a thing to say to oneself: ‘I’m going to leave my country of birth. I’m going to travel to this foreign land, where I do not know anybody, where I do not know the language, where I do not know the culture, and I’m going to set up there and call it home. I am going to embrace and accept it so much that I’m going to become a citizen.’ I sit there thinking, ‘Could I leave my country of birth, go somewhere else and do that?’ The answer I always come up with is no. I think they are incredibly brave individuals.
At the end of a citizenship ceremony you give out your tree and you say, ‘Well done. Where have you come from? How long have you been here?’ The majority of new arrivals have been here for the two years. They are signing up, straightaway. They are not waiting. These people are from places like Afghanistan, Iran and the various Sudanese countries or they are Chinese people. When you ask people how long they have been here and they say, ‘Thirty-two years’—the best I had was 64—you will find they are Anglo-Saxons, predominantly from the UK. I said to one guy who had been here for 64 years, ‘Why now? Why after all this time?’ and he said, ‘Why not?’ They have not seen the urgency, because most of them can vote. Most of them have had all the rights conferred upon them because they were previously British citizens. It is our new arrivals who say: ‘Yes, this is my country. This is the country I am now adopting.’ Why are they all here? Universally it is the same answer: ‘A better life for our children.’
I recently held a skilled migrants forum. These were not people on 457 visas; they came in under the skilled migrant category because their qualifications are recognised and needed in this country. They came with up to $250,000 to demonstrate that they will be able to support themselves while here. The majority of these highly educated individuals, who have given up good lives in their country of birth to come here, predominantly to gain better opportunities for their children, have not been able to find work. In this land we are saying that we have a skills crisis and that we need people. We are embracing these people. So why can’t they find work?
The first reason given is, ‘You don’t have relevant experience.’ The accountants and the engineers in the room, who had all worked for global companies, say, ‘What is relevant experience? I’m applying again to work in a global company. The international accounting standards I have been using are used here.’ It gets down to inherent racism. A lot of these people are very dark. A lot of them are African. Their first language is English and, although they have an accent, it is not one that is difficult to understand. They put in their CVs. Half of these people have been to university in England and the US and have better qualifications than the people who are reviewing their CVs but who will not give them jobs. They struggle and end up downgrading their skills by taking lower jobs to get back into the sector.
The notion of ‘other’—that somehow we need to be wary of ‘other’—is whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria and sentiment. I concur with the comments of the former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser last night when he said that that is the card the Prime Minister is going to play at the next election: ‘We have had the asylum seeker issue, we have had the interest rate issue; now we have to find a scare campaign. Instead of going with decent policies to take us into the 22nd century, we are going to whip up hysteria. We are going to whip up the notion of other.’ I am surprised that in this debate the parliamentary secretary did not slide in that now we are going to have an English language test. That is coming. That will be the debate next year.
I go to a lot of these citizenship ceremonies as I say, and the majority of the people are struggling with English. A lot are not; a lot are proficient in English—it is their first language, even though they have come from fairly diverse backgrounds. But, if we are to encourage people to ensure that they have English when they take up their citizenship, surely we must be putting in the resources so they can actually do it. This government has in fact slashed money from English classes by $11 million. It has underfunded programs. It does not ensure that there are sufficient hours. It does not ensure that the classes are at flexible times and it does not provide child care.
A lot of people in my electorate would dearly love to go to the classes and be involved, but they cannot find adequate child care to go there. I have a four-year-old. He often comes into my office, and the work productivity of my office diminishes greatly, I can tell you. I do not know how a mum going to an English class with a child, or a lot of the grandparents who are here babysitting children, would actually learn anything in an English class if they are not provided with sufficient resources for child care. We find this over and over again.
The AMES in my area at Box Hill run a fantastic program. They run on an absolute shoestring and they provide classes that they are not even funded for, because a lot of volunteers give of their time graciously. If we want people to be proficient in English then we have to provide the resources so they can be.
The ALP first introduced English literacy classes way back when as an equity issue so that people would have greater access to work. My sister-in-law’s mother, who sadly left this world some time ago, lived and died in this country, raised her five children and worked here, and never spoke a word of English. Well, she had two or three words of English. I remember at my brother’s wedding, my nanna—who is of very old Irish background—said, ‘I can’t understand what she is saying.’ I said, ‘It’s not surprising; it’s all in Italian, Nanna.’ It is not really surprising. She lived, worked and raised her five children here, all in Italian, quite sufficiently, without any need of the English language because she went to a workplace where the lead hand could tell them everything. If they needed translation, one of her five girls did it.
That is not the best system to be involved in, but people manage. They still manage. In my electorate, as I say, I have a very large Chinese contingent. I go to many functions where I am dealing with individuals who have scant English, but they are still contributing valuably to this society. They are all struggling with English—they are all trying—but they are still contributing. There is somehow a false notion that you cannot get by without English. I think this is wrong, and generations of migrants have demonstrated it.
The other anomaly with this is the government saying, ‘We are eventually going to introduce this English language test to gain citizenship, but at the same time you can apply for a 457 visa to come here as a skilled migrant and there is no English requirement.’ Sorry? You can come here and work straightaway in a job and you do not have to have English but, at the same time, we are saying that, if you want to be a contributor to our society and become a citizen, you have to have English. Isn’t there just a little anomaly here? Isn’t there something fundamentally wrong?
Under the new bill, the period of residence qualification went from two to three years, but with the amendment at the last hour it has gone to four. We agreed to have this debate in the Main Committee because we were accepting of the three years, but somehow, under the radar, it has become four. And the rationale by the former speaker is that it is to allow residents a greater period of time to better understand Australian ways of life and values. I think, if you have determined you are going to come here, it is not about the period of time that you are here; it is the experience you have in this environment. Be it two years, be it three or be it four, it is what type of experience you have here. Most of these people do find a very good experience here. Some do not.
But what the government has not considered is what extending this period cuts people off from. It cuts people off from the ability to get a HECS place in university. It cuts people off from access to other services that they would be entitled to if they were a citizen. It cuts them off from the right to vote, the right to get an Australian passport, the right to serve on a jury, the right to enter the Public Service and the right to enter the armed forces. At a time when we are saying we need more people in the armed forces, we are going to make it more difficult. I do not understand the rationale behind it. I could understand if there were a genuine security concern and a need to have a greater check on individuals. Perhaps that is a good rationale, but I cannot see it.
One of the things that will be of concern is that this security check will look into convictions overseas. In my electorate of Chisholm I have a small Chilean community. Most of them have convictions from overseas under the previous regime of Pinochet. These people have now been recognised as heroes by the current government in Chile. They have actually been given a grant of money from this government. Would these people now be denied citizenship because they had a previous criminal record under a previous, harsh regime?
I have some Cambodians in my electorate and it is the same thing. Some of them have been held in detention. Whether it was legal or not is another thing of concern. So there are grey areas around that. Would someone now be told, ‘No, you did some time in jail’? ‘Well, I did because the dictator at the time didn’t like my political stance and they locked me up.’ Would that cut them off? This is a bit of a grey area and some of my constituents are concerned about it.
The other alarming fact is the bit of retrospectivity. People who are currently here and have been on permanent residency for two years will now have this waiting period extended. Who has gone out and advised them of that? I think this is fundamentally wrong and unfair. These are residents who have followed the rules as set out to them and who will now find, through no fault of their own, they will have to wait this extra period. Many permanent residents do put their plans on hold for things like getting married and for undergoing education. These will now be extended. There has been no great education campaign to ensure that these people will not be caught up in something that they do not know about and do not understand. When they go to lodge their citizenship forms they will discover that they somehow are now caught up in this mess.
Citizenship is a thing that most people do not take lightly. They go to the ceremony and they think about it. At a ceremony just last week there were some fantastic individuals. I asked the father in one family who was becoming a citizen, ‘How long?’ He said, ‘Oh, 32 years.’ I said, ‘Why after 32 years?’ and he said: ‘Well, I figure I’m staying now. The wife and the kids won’t let me go.’ He was given a beautiful certificate. His girls looked at it and said: ‘We don’t have anything like that. We’re Australians born and bred and we do not have a beautiful certificate.’ He was so proud and the girls thought: ‘Oh, we have sort of been dudded here. We haven’t got anything except our birth certificates.’ He had been here a long time, obviously married, had had his girls, been part of the community and was there accepting it.
There was another family who had been here 2½ years. They were from Malaysia. He had had come out and had subsequently brought out his wife and child. Again, they were just besotted by this experience and were full of joy and excitement. His wife had come in the full traditional dress and they were there making sure that they had the photo with the mayor and all the rest of it. People take this seriously. It is not an act taken lightly. It is not an act that these people just embark upon.
One of my staff, who is English and had been here for many years, prior to getting married a couple of years ago said: ‘Well, right, that’s it. I really should become an Australian citizen now. I intend on getting married and having children and they will all be Australian citizens.’ She agonised over that for quite some time. There was a great deal of correspondence going on with her parents back in England that somehow she was not renouncing them. I do not think people do this lightly. I do not think people enter into it as somehow this great thing that will now enable them to rip off the Australian tax system and get all these benefits. It is a significant step that people take. We should be honouring these people who choose to stay here, who choose to take these rights. This bill in some respects is demeaning some of these people and saying, ‘Somehow you are now other,’ and we are flagging the race card for the next election.
The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 rewrites the old Citizenship Act of 1948. There are some good elements to this citizenship bill. Most of the changes facilitate the taking of citizenship and follow the recommendations of the Australian Citizenship Council report released on 18 February 2000. The legislation implements measures to allow citizenship for many who lost it or did not have access due to former restrictions on dual citizenship. This includes the Maltese community, of which I have a large number in my electorate, Australian citizens who have adopted children overseas and people from a Papua New Guinean background. These are good changes and we welcome them.
However, there is one particular change in this bill that I am concerned about, and that is the increase in the number of years before citizenship can be applied for, from two to four years. When COAG originally agreed to increase the number of years from two to three, the Labor Party supported it because there was a security justification. After discussion with many people in my community, I found that even people still intending to apply for citizenship—even people still within the two years—found this a reasonable compromise to make: a change from two to three years was not a significant burden on people seeking to join us as citizens. But there has been no justification for the increase from two to four years. I am pleased, however, to see that the government will be accepting Labor’s amendment to not make this change retrospective. There was considerable concern in my community from people who had come here on one basis that the rules would be changed under their feet and they would be made to wait considerably longer than they had expected.
What I am most concerned about is the context in which the government seeks to conduct debates on citizenship. It seems that every time the issue is raised the government appeals to the most fearful people in our society, raising the notion that new arrivals might be a threat to the rest of us—a threat to us, not them—and should be treated as such. Ever since migration began in Australia, part of the population here has responded with fear. There are always some of us who are afraid. Some Indian people came out under British citizenship in the second fleet and worked as servants in the early convict years, but a proposal by the colony to bring out more Indian servants was rejected overwhelmingly by the early Australians for fear of the changes it would make in society.
The early Chinese caused fear among us. We were afraid of the Greeks and the Italians. I remember in my suburb we were particularly afraid of the Greek neighbours, because they painted their house blue and concreted their yard. We were terrified that our house prices would drop as a result. I remember the fear of the Italian Mafia, particularly in Melbourne. When they first arrived here, the Italians were a scary lot to some sections of the Australian population. It was a similar case with the Vietnamese. There were the Vietnamese gangs, the home raids and the Japanese triads. There has always been a section of the Australian population which has responded to changes within us with fear.
I remember that when I was at school, the children of Italian migrants, even though they were born here, were not allowed to go out with Aussie kids. They were not allowed to go out with Australian-born kids; they had to go out with other children of Italian extraction. It was quite clear, and I remember how shocking we found that at the time. When we look at our Italian and Greek communities now, they are completely integrated and are strong contributors to our society, but at the time even the Greeks and Italians caused fear and worry among us.
I remember when the Vietnamese boat people first started arriving. I was working at the Golden Circle factory cannery in Brisbane in my school holidays. When the Vietnamese boat people first started arriving, they turned up in numbers. They turned up as whole families and worked every hour of overtime they possibly could. They were extraordinary workers, desperate to build a life here for themselves and their families. That very work ethic was seen as a threat by the people who worked in the factory. They were afraid that these Vietnamese people worked so hard that they would take our jobs away and take our prosperity. In their eyes, they had to be stopped; they could not work that hard. They were incredibly frightening to some sections of the community at the time. I still hear comments about how children of Asian parents work too hard in school—that they work too hard and they are leaving other kids behind.
There will always be these elements of fear. What is different this time is that we have a government that exploits that fear. I remember clearly the time of the arrival of the Vietnamese boat people. The situation then illustrates the difference between the Fraser government and the Howard government. Remember that that was one boat every week and a half for about 18 months. It was not one Tampa; it was one boat every week and a half. I remember the efforts from both sides of politics to keep a lid on the fear, to make those people welcome and to assist the Australian population as a whole to deal with their fears—to come to terms with their fears and to see the situation rationally rather than from a perspective of fear.
It is not that we can afford to ignore the views of these people as silly or irrelevant. We cannot afford to ignore the fear of any Australian. In fact, if we do not deal with the fears of some of the members of our population we will be held back by them. But, since the rise of Pauline Hanson in politics in Australia, this government has started to see this group of fearful people as a political group that can be used and manipulated for political purposes. We have seen the dog whistle politics of the Howard government—and, not satisfied with increasing the fear level of that group, it is trying to move that fear through the broader community.
I am appalled sometimes now at what I hear said by people who five or six years ago would not have made these kinds of remarks. I hear people now in trains and in the shopping centres essentially having a go at Muslims—people they do not even know; people who pass them in the street. None of these people say that they were attacked or abused by a Muslim; they simply say that they have heard from somewhere that they are dangerous, and they repeat that. I mix with all kinds of groups and I hear stories from Australians about being attacked in the streets and about being afraid to go out in the daytime. But mostly those stories come from young Muslim girls who choose to wear the hijab. They are afraid to go out in the streets because they do hear words of hate, they do get assaulted and they do get their scarves pulled off. They are tending now to stay home out of fear of going out in the street.
So the effect of these dog whistle politics—the effect of legislation designed to tell the Australian people that we should be afraid of the new and that new people coming to Australia are some kind of threat—is already being felt in the fabric of our community. It is already tearing us apart and it can only do more damage. We do not make the world safer by rejecting people that we fear. We do make the world into the place we fear if we push people away in the way we are doing now.
I go to citizenship ceremonies all the time in my electorate. I have three local councils, so there is at least one a week in my area. I sit there watching these people in that symbolic act as they become citizens of Australia—to become, as I put it, ‘one of us’ permanently. I realise that I really cannot understand what it is that they are going through. I was born here, I have always been Australian and I always will be Australian. It does not ever occur to me to become a citizen of another country. To visit one is great, but to change my citizenship or to give up this country is not something that I think I could ever do. I watch these people and I realise that they have made a decision at some point in their lives to give up the country of their birth and to come to this one and make it their home.
I know from talking to many of them that they do this because they want a better life for their children. They see an opportunity in this country to build a better life. But to do so they must sell up and leave behind friends, relatives, neighbours, a land that they know and quite often a land that they love and come to this one. It is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, and it is not something that I believe anyone would do lightly. Then you realise that, in the two or more years that it has taken them to move to Australia, begin to feel comfortable here and then choose to become a citizen, they have followed an incredibly difficult path. Many of them arrive here with good English—and some not so good—but it is still not their first language. When you have to deal with others in a language which is not your own and which you have not been using for very long, you actually lose parts of your personality. The ability to show your sense of humour and the ability to communicate easily are lost for a while.
So we have people who come here to settle and, over the period they are settling, they exist without parts of their personality. They quite often lose their status—the status that they had earned in their own country. They have to start again here. They quite often come without their qualifications. When they arrive here, their children become Australian so quickly that the parents even lose that strong cultural bond with them in those early years. This is an extraordinary path that these people choose. It is incredibly difficult, and I do not think we should ever write off that experience in the way that I have heard it written off in this House in speeches by government members as something that is taken lightly or something that is done without thought or without recognising the significance of it.
You also cannot mistake at those citizenship ceremonies the joy and pride that these people feel when they make that final declaration. They are all out there trying to get their photo taken; they are all trying to get their electoral enrolment form signed. Most of them are there with their families. I find that most of those who make the decision to become a citizen very soon after that two-year period, which is the earliest time that they can do it, do so because they have families here. The decision to make Australia their home was made a long time before they arrived in Australia. Many of them have been waiting to get here for quite some time. They come here because their family is here, and this is their home from the day they arrive. They take the step of citizenship as a formal recognition of that at the first opportunity they can. I have not seen any evidence at any of the ceremonies that I have attended of people who take this lightly or do it without a considerable amount of thought.
I am also concerned about the government’s proposal—not included in this bill but out there in the public domain—to introduce English language and citizenship tests. Quite frankly, apart from such a proposal again raising the idea that some of these people do not know how to be Australians, I cannot see how it would work if the purpose of it is to protect Australia from people who become citizens without accepting the values of Australia. I do not see how an ability to pass a test, particularly a written one, would demonstrate that one way or another.
A test might demonstrate whether you can study and pass; however, if a person is coming to Australia in order to do Australia harm, they would probably wait the four years and then do the test. I just cannot see how a test prevents a person intent on doing Australia harm from becoming a citizen. Nor do I understand why not becoming a citizen would prevent them from doing harm. If you are going to do Australia harm, you can do it as a visitor. You can do it as a permanent resident. You do not need to be a citizen to do that; you only need to be here.
This test is an extra barrier to people who want to become citizens. It does nothing whatsoever to prevent people who want to do us harm from becoming citizens. It makes it harder for the good people. It does not make it harder for those we might want to catch somehow. A much better way to catch those people is by more stringent security tests in the early stages, before they even arrive here. Once they are here, it is a problem. Once they are here under any circumstances, it is a problem. If they are going to be a problem, let us make sure they do not get here in the first place.
Of course English language is important. It is very important for people trying to make their way in Australia. It is not always as easy for some as it is for others to learn. I know refugee families in my electorate who come here, particularly those from Africa, with very poor English, with no written language in some cases and with five, six or more children. They come here not knowing the basics of how to use a washing machine, how to turn on a stove or how to use a telephone. They come here highly traumatised from experiences that most of us would not want to imagine, with children who are highly traumatised following the death of their father, many of their relatives and some of their siblings.
These are incredibly traumatised people, and they may just need to rest for a while. They may just need to rest in this country in safety. Sometimes that is the best they can do emotionally when they first arrive here. We should be grateful that we can provide a place for these people—a place where a mother can go out to a park with her children, without worrying whether she will take those children home alive, which is the past experience of some of the people who arrive in this country. I desperately want those women and their children to settle well in Australia, but they need to do that in a way that they can. They need to do that at a pace that they can. Believe me, they do everything they can to settle here. They are so grateful for the opportunity to be here. They are still grieving for their homeland, for their families and for lost lives, but they are so grateful to be here that they will make their lives work in this country.
I met one recently, a young man called Ding. He does not live in my electorate; he lives just outside it. He is 24 years old and has five brothers and sisters in Australia. Both parents are dead and one sister is still in Egypt. He is studying second-year law and international finance. His two immediate younger siblings are also in university and the next three are in school—two in high school and one in primary school. He is their father at 24 years of age. He is doing absolutely everything that anyone could possibly expect to serve this country well simply by serving his family well and making sure that they can do well in the lives that they have chosen in this country.
If we are concerned that people are having difficulty settling in this country, there are two ways to look at it. We can do what the government has done and assume that the reason is some of them are just bad people and we have to force them to do the right thing. We have to force them to learn English by putting a test in their citizenship application. We have to force them to learn about Australian history. We have to make them wait longer to prove themselves. We have to treat them as though they are essentially bad people. Or we can take another approach, which I believe is more realistic, which is to assume that they are good people trying to do the right thing by themselves and by this country and provide the services that they actually need to do well.
The Howard government have cut funding to English language courses. If they think it is so important, let us see them put some money into it. Let us see them help people learn English instead of cutting the funding. But English is not the only issue for people trying to settle in Australia. One of the first areas, and probably the most important area, where people need to integrate is in the workplace. We have skilled migrants who come to this country who are kept out of the workforce for quite a considerable length of time because of the need for them to be able to transfer, for example, their accounting skills over to Australian law or their engineering skills into the framework of Australian codes of practice. They cannot get jobs here because they do not have experience working in Australia. They have difficulty getting work experience because of insurance problems. When they first arrive in Australia, they spend a lot of the time dealing with the practicalities of life in Australia, like how you find a flat when you do not have a reference, how you rent a home and different banking systems. They have a whole stack of practicalities that they need to get through, which wastes their time in the early stages of their arrival, and yet there is no assistance provided by this government for skilled migrants settling in Australia. They have considerable difficulties. There are practical things that we can do that will help people settle more quickly, feel more at home and build their lives here without beating people up and blaming them because they may not be able to move through this incredibly difficult process as quickly as others.
The integration issue is much more complex than what we hear debated in the media and in this House. When I talk to communities in my electorate, the issues of integration are quite often caused by the fact that the children integrate so fast and the parents retain their culture from another land for much longer—as they always will and as they always have. So the intergenerational conflict between parent and child, as the children reach teenage years, is a major issue of integration, but it is not a failure. It is because the children become Australian so fast. It is a sign of the success of our multicultural society that we have this intergenerational conflict. Let us support these people instead of attacking them. (Time expired)
I am happy to again follow the member for Parramatta because she has given, as usual, a considered and sensible speech, one in which she incorporates her own experience of these things that gives a forcefulness and validity to the points that she is making. As with the member for Parramatta, I want to support the amendment that the opposition has put forward and also deal with some of the significant matters that affect my electorate of Blaxland as well as the surrounding electorates of Prospect, Reid, Banks, Lowe and Watson—because the issues that we are debating today concern more than merely citizenship per se and the measures taken within the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 to address a series of anomalies in the 1948 act.
When you compare Australia in 1948 to Australia in 2006, the enormous changes during that period of time and the history of modern migration to Australia have left some groups of people effectively pigeon-holed or in difficulty, worrying that their status is not precisely defined or is not sorted out. There is a fundamental example here. An examination of that was undertaken at great depth when the Senate committee dealt with this. It is the situation of the Maltese: if people wanted to return to Malta for a period and seek to work, they were forced to choose. If they had Australian citizenship, they were forced to renounce it. What is proposed in this bill is a resolution of the problem for those people from Malta. This bill can restore to them the Australian citizenship that they had to give up.
Let us think about the intervening period from 1948 to 2006 and the waves of migrants who came to Australia who were in a similar position, where their originating country stipulated that, having left its shores, people had made a statement that they no longer wished to be Dutch, Filipino, Maltese or whatever—that they had chosen a new land and therefore that land should be the only one available to them. The whole history of people adjusting to the notion of whether or not you can have a dual nationality has been long and deep. We know how long this parliament struggled with the idea.
We know as well that, embedded in the dealings that the High Court has had with these matters, there is still a fundamental issue of whether or not people owe their allegiance to another power if they have taken up citizenship with one country and then take it up in Australia. This very point was dealt with in two cases—Singh’s case in 2004 and Ame’s case in 2005—as explicated in the Bills Digest. How were these people treated if they were citizens of another country and also citizens of Australia? They were treated as aliens.
Embedded at the very core of the Constitution is the notion that you can have allegiance to only one sovereign power. Our legislation attempts to take into account the fact that we have people from all over the world. We had people from all over the world in the 1850s in Australia. They came here to dig for gold, find their fortune and have a better life. They came from California; they came from every land on this planet. It was an extraordinarily multicultural society. That washed out in the subsequent 50 years or so, until Federation. We fined down to an Australia which was pretty much like the one we had at the start—Anglo-Celtic.
We also made sure at the start of the 20th century that we kept out everybody that we could. Australia was impelled by the notion that we should be a white Australia. That is what the Labor Party signed up to as one of its fundamental core values at the start of its history. We had people concerned and worried about the fact that we could be flooded with foreign labour and that that could undercut our conditions and wages and dramatically affect the conditions of Australian working people. How times have changed. But times and circumstances can revisit us. We are falling back into this very situation now with 457 visas and the other things that are being done to put immense pressure on Australian workers.
I once went on a holiday to the United States and rocked up to the immigration counters to have my visa stamped. If you are an American, you go through one set of gates. If you are from somewhere else, you go through another. I looked up at the signs and the counters that I had to go through said ‘aliens’. I thought it was something from American sci-fi films of the fifties. I was an alien in that land. It came as somewhat of a surprise to me, not being a constitutional lawyer, that the very same notion is embedded in our Constitution. This is not something that is just sci-fi. The whole idea of otherness—‘alienness’—is embedded in the notion that we should have just a single identity.
For a country such as ours, built on the Anglo-Celtic tradition and on newness and an innovative approach to creating a new life in a new land, the idea of being Australian came very slowly to people. They were still embedded in the British Empire and still saw that as their reference point, but they finally came to see themselves as Australian. It would come as a great surprise to many British people who are currently here—who have the right to vote and the right to reside here permanently—that they may not be classified as a real Australian either because, in fact, they are aliens according to the Australian Constitution. They owe their allegiance to a foreign power—that is, Britain. They could, in fact, be dealt with in the way that other aliens have been dealt with in Australia.
One of the things that is not properly dealt with in this bill is the question of the definitions that the High Court has used in regard to who is and who is not properly an Australian. The fact that we have passed legislation that allows dual nationality—allows people in countries where, on the other side, they have said, ‘It’s okay for you to have two nationalities; we’ll recognise that’—provides some peace of mind and comfort to people who have come to Australia and still want to retain that link. In a lot of cases it is necessary—for instance, with Filipinos not becoming Australian citizens because they will lose the property rights they had in the Philippines for both themselves and their family. This is the case with some other jurisdictions in the world as well.
Why people do not choose to become citizens and that they continue to be aliens is answered in part because of economic losses they or their family would suffer or be deemed to suffer as a result of taking that step or, in the vast majority of cases, because those Britishers, having arrived before the operation of the 1948 act brought in by Arthur Calwell and because they were part of the British empire and Commonwealth as we were, had a right to vote and a right to permanent residence in this country.
In citizenship ceremonies in Blaxland, I generally ask people, ‘How long have you been here—four years, five years, two years?’ It is two years now, but when this bill comes into operation, I could not have actually said two years except for quite a while ago, because this government has extended the residential qualifying period from two years to three years. In this bill it has extended the qualifying period from three years to four years. Whereas previously there were negotiations with the Council of Australian Governments where it talked about these issues, it has not talked about this issue at all. The government has done it on its own as part of its agenda to put citizenship in its values campaign. The government’s willingness to drive through into these areas, to find some mechanism by which it can open the lock to the next election and run a campaign to divert from what are the fundamental problems—run on the basis of emotion and not rationality—is the reason for kicking it up to four years.
There is no intrinsic merit in an extra year of waiting. When we came to power in March 1983, there was a five-year waiting period. I do not know why the government just did not flick up to five years, which is where they were before Labor came to power. Maybe it is just a steady progression. Implicit in this idea is that, if you wait longer, you will be more ready for citizenship—and there is an associated question here—if you can speak English well and effectively. However useful it may be to work your way through society, to enrich yourself and your family or to get a better chance at a better job by being able to speak English, if that provision were placed on Sir Peter Abeles or Sir Arvi Parbo when they lobbed into this joint, I do not think they would have got very far. Yet the reality is that they built substantial careers in this country, as have the millions of other people who came here who had no grasp of English at all or a very poor one.
The reality is that most of the postwar migrants who came in the fifties and sixties simply did not have the capacity or ability to speak English. They also did not have a great grasp of their original language because particularly those from throughout the Mediterranean came from peasant based societies that had been shattered by a complete world war—a village based society in which they were quite comfortable with their own local dialect. But, as for the language with the higher level of usage in Italy, for instance, or in Greece, they simply did not have the opportunity to learn it. The literacy that they had was much lower.
As migrants out of central Europe, for instance, where they had done it extraordinarily hard both under the Nazis and also in some cases under the impress of the Soviets, when they came to this place unable to speak English what help did they get from the Menzies government? I will tell you what help they got to settle here and to learn English. Either they were shown the door to the local factory—the Fountain tomato sauce factory down at Marrickville—or they could leave their family at Chullora or Villawood or over at the detention camp at Randwick and travel to Bonegilla or up to Jindabyne or to Bathurst for two full years at least, effectively leaving their family on hold while they sought to perform that fundamental task. The help they got was from fellow migrants who could not speak English either. People on the factory floor at Dunlop’s, when it was on the corner of Canterbury Road and Chapel Road at Bankstown, taught each other.
The core thing about taking up citizenship is associated with the whole question of settlement. How do you assist people to settle better in Australia? What happened in the Menzies period? It was: ‘Look after yourself and the devil will take the hindmost’. What is the situation in the Howard period? Look after yourself and the devil takes the hindmost.
In the forward estimates, the money available for English language teaching to migrant people has been cut by $10.8 million. Does that surprise me as the member for Blaxland? Not one jot or tittle. Why? Because the Adult Migrant Education Service operating in Bankstown, just down the road from my electorate, was savagely cut in 1996. Forty per cent of the funds available to that program were ripped out of the program in the first budget that this government brought down. And, progressively, they have whittled it back and back and back. So as they withdraw the funds—and they are still doing it—they campaign on the fact that people coming to Australia cannot speak English and hit them with a ruler over the back of the knuckles, saying, ‘You should be able to if you want to participate fully in our society.’
This is political campaigning, but it is political campaigning married to a complete withdrawal of the resources that should be available to people to help them settle better. It makes a political weapon of those people at the same time that it penalises them. So, if citizenship means anything, it should mean an undertaking from the government that is talking about fixing up past problems and a government—particularly Parliamentary Secretary Robb—that is talking about the need for people to have capacity in English. For the campaign they are running with that, it is a case of: ‘Put your money where your mouth is.’ Rather than taking it back, it should be put into these programs in order to give people the capacity to learn English and settle better.
But you need a great deal more than that as well. You actually need a recognition that the society we have crafted in 2006, for all its warts and all its difficulties and all its problems, is a dramatically different one from the savagery of Australia in 1948, when the Citizenship Act was put into place. It was a society split down the centre on religious lines, between Protestant and Catholic. It was a society that was split down the centre in terms of allegiance, between allegiance to the British Empire and the British Commonwealth and allegiance to the idea of Australia or an Australian republic. It was a society in which people walked on either side of the streets when they went off to school and threw insults or stones at each other and maintained their separateness.
The one fundamental thing that postwar migration did was blast away the bitterness, nastiness, savageness, parochialism and pestilence of religious animosity of pre-1948 Australia. That has gone, thankfully, because there were other challenges to all of the people who were here. They actually had to confront newness and difference and change. In the fifties and sixties that was encompassed by integrating people and assimilating them very strongly. The kids I went to school with ended up being more Australian than I was, because they wanted to be no different to anyone else. That was being demanded of them.
But a lot was lost in that. One of the great, almost criminal, losses was in the relationship between parent and child. Those poor people who came from peasant societies had had to struggle to get a living for themselves in continents that were ripped apart by war for more than six years. They had to scrabble for a future there as they had to scrabble for a future here, with no assistance in English language training and learning off other people who were also scrabbling for assistance. They were working as hard as they could, not being accepted by people and being rejected by their children because they could not speak English. They were being rejected by their children because they were different from the parents of the Australian kids that they went to school with. Those poor people had to scrabble for a future knowing that their children actually were ashamed of the fact that their parents were different. That is the great loss of the 50s and 60s in Australia in terms of the emotional deprivation of those migrants and the gulf that was opened up between them and their children.
Those sins were atoned for with multiculturalism in allowing people to be proud of where they came from and of the fact that they could speak another language and add diversity to Australia. It also allowed their children to see their parents in a different light. The fundamental of citizenship here is not where you come from but how you settle within this community. At its core citizenship is about owing allegiance not to a foreign power but to an Australia that you feel part of. But the Australian government have to take the lead to make people feel wanted and part of that. Instead of that, what they are doing is sending out messages saying, ‘Well, you’ve come here but we don’t want you for two years; we have changed that to three. We don’t want you after three years—you are not acceptable as an Australian. We don’t want you now until you have been here for four years.’ The government will get it up to five years if they stay in long enough.
But the reality is that, from whatever part of the globe people have come from and for whatever reasons they have come here, the key question is whether they can make a commitment to Australia and a commitment to Australia’s way of life and fundamental values. Most of the people I have seen at citizenship ceremonies want to do that. There are a lot of people who do not take the next step though. We have had an electoral redistribution in New South Wales where we have lost another electorate to Queensland. Part of the problem is that, linked to the citizenship ceremonies, where we say people have rights and duties, we do not demand from and encourage people: ‘If you are going to take up citizenship, you get yourself on the electoral roll.’ In their hundreds of thousands, people coming in from overseas are not doing that, just as young Australians are not taking up their duty to get on the electoral roll either and have a complete participation in the society.
I support the second reading amendment to this bill. I am against the proposal of the extension to four years and I am against a government that will not actually support people embedding themselves in society but rather takes away from them the right to have settlement and refuses to help them. The government would rather just say, ‘You come here and then you look after yourself.’
I would like to join my colleagues in speaking on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. In doing so I will flag the general concerns that have been outlined by the member for Watson, who made the first speech on this side in this second reading debate on this bill and set out the concerns of the Labor Party around one of the major changes proposed in this bill—that being the change to four years residence before a person can become a citizen. He also took the time to set out a number of the issues that we support within this bill, because it is a package that has a number of components to it. Some of them are very positive things—for example, some increased flexibility of the periods of time that can be taken into account in seeking to qualify for citizenship.
It saddens me to be standing in this place talking about this legislation on citizenship when most of the time in my job when I am dealing with citizenship I am at much more joyous occasions. Like the member for Blaxland who spoke before me, I have a very ethnically mixed electorate. I go to citizenship ceremonies all the time. Often there are two sessions, one session after the other, with a hundred people each time. At these sessions, we would have people from 60 or 70 different countries taking out citizenship. It fills me with great heart when I see the sort of gene pool that we are expanding in Australia; it is a country with an extraordinary mix of people from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds and of different ages and experiences.
I think my electorate of Gellibrand has to date set a very good example for many parts of the country on how people can live together very harmoniously. We have gone through being an area full of Maltese, Italian and Greek migrants immediately after the war to being home to large numbers of Vietnamese citizens. They are now the highest ethnic group in my electorate after those who are Australian born. We now have a growing African community, mostly from countries in the Horn of Africa. It makes for a vibrant, exciting, interesting and wonderful part of Australia to live in.
I am just slightly disappointed that we are here talking not about the positive things that come from opening our country to citizens from around the world but about some of the negatives. The government is particularly focusing on some of the penalties, if you like, that have to be paid, rather than embracing those who have chosen our country, who want to make this their home and who are often the most fervent advocates of all the things that Australia is known for around the world. As I said, my part of Melbourne has been a very good advertisement for successful multiculturalism. I know that it is not the same around all of the country, but we need to make sure that the measures we take to change this, like some of those that have been debated today, will actually enhance and support, rather than oppose, a vast range of new citizens being welcomed into our country.
When I was campaigning for my election the first time around—some eight or nine years ago now—I can remember, and I said this in my first speech, how impressed I was at meeting a Vietnamese monk who runs a Buddhist temple in my electorate. He explained to me how he felt, not just when he was first granted citizenship but on the first election day after he was granted citizenship. He had a sense of acute obligation but also excitement that he was here in Australia, able to help shape the future of his new country. I thought that was such a humbling thing to have described to someone who was born here and who to some extent has taken their citizenship for granted. I think all of us who have had this experience cannot really appreciate the sense of satisfaction that many new citizens feel. That is why they go on, by and large, to become such valuable contributors to our community.
It worries me that a test, whether it is two years, three years or four years, is not actually going to be the measure of that. What is going to be the measure is how we make sure that we encourage new arrivals to embrace our community and society and to enhance it with their different experiences and backgrounds. This lets us all move forward. Probably no-one in the House disagrees with those aims. What we disagree with sometimes is the way that the government proposes to effect these changes, particularly the silly change of going to four years. There seems to be no justification that it will doing anything to create a more welcoming environment or, in fact, deliver some type of better person to become a citizen, which seems to be what the government thinks it will deliver.
I am also very concerned about the government saying that this is a way to enable people to become more settled in our community when funding for some of the very things that would help people settle is being cut or stopped—like the $10 million English program that has been slashed. These are not consistent positions for the government to be taking. It might be better to look at some of the restrictions that exist—for example, the times when people can take up that English training—rather than slashing the money, extending the period and saying that people should go off and somehow integrate on their own and learn English on their own without any assistance from the government.
I wanted to raise those general issues and express my support for the positions that have been indicated by my colleagues, but I also want to talk about two particular issues. One is how this legislation affects some people who are Maltese-born. This issue has been raised by a number of my colleagues already, so I do not intend to go over all of the detail. But I have over 2,000 people living in my electorate who were born in Malta—and obviously a large number in addition to that who would have Maltese heritage. I know that there are particular concerns about this bill, because it is not fixing a problem that has occurred for a number of families when they have returned to Malta and been required to renounce their citizenship. That has had an impact on their children and they have had to seek to re-establish a connection with Australia.
Because a number of my other colleagues have already dealt with this, I just want to add my voice to those concerns. It is important that we take the opportunity to fix this situation. There are probably more Cassars, Vellas and Davids in my electorate than there are in many others. People with a Maltese heritage have been outstanding community members and activists; there is a real reason for us to make sure that those who have a longstanding link with this country are not denied it because we fail to make some fairly technical changes that would just make sure that people are not left out.
I turn to another issue, which I think none of my colleagues will have raised. It is a particularly technical issue, but I want to flag it because it is something that a person I have a great deal of respect for has been working on for some time. Professor Kim Rubenstein, a professor at ANU, specialises in a range of issues dealing with citizenship. She has become involved with the case of a woman called Susan Walsh. Susan Walsh’s name is on the record because there has already been a large amount of litigation about this issue, but the facts are probably not well known around this House.
Susan Walsh was born in Australia to an Australian citizen parent but is not considered an Australian citizen. This odd circumstance has come about because Ms Walsh was born in Papua at a time when Papua was part of Australia—or was regarded for these purposes as part of Australia. Her father was an Australian citizen and her mother was an indigenous Papuan. Because she was born an Australian citizen and because of the period she was born in, she has now found that she is stuck in no-man’s-land under section 10 of the Australian Citizenship Act. She cannot apply for citizenship by descent, because at the time she was born she was born in Australia. One of the qualifications for applying for citizenship by descent is to be born outside Australia. Because of the quirks of history and the changing status of Papua, she is, for the purposes of that test, regarded as having been born in Australia, but for the purposes of whether she is an Australian citizen she does not get the protection of that act.
I do not want to go through all of the complicated circumstances. This is not the time or place to do that. I am sure that the departmental officials, having been involved in litigation that has been taken by Ms Walsh, will be acutely aware of the intricacies of this case. But it seems to me that when we are making a range of other changes it would be worth while examining whether the small number of people who were affected by this change could also be picked up by some sort of amendment to this bill.
There were provisions made at the time which allowed for the transfer. When Papua New Guinea became independent, unfortunately there were not notification provisions; it was not possible to go out and tell all of the people who might have been affected by this that they needed to reapply for citizenship within a period of time. The fact that Ms Walsh did not know about this meant that she lost her citizenship without being aware of it. It seems to me that it is worth putting these concerns on the record. When we have people with such an intimate connection to Australia not being able to avail themselves of Australian citizenship, it does seem to put us in a pretty silly position.
We live in a country where we want to encourage those who live here and have a connection with us. We should encourage those who have Australian parents and might have been born here, moved overseas and want to come back—they are the very people that we want to encourage to live in Australia, make it their home and have the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship. It is shame, then, that someone in Ms Walsh’s situation misses out. I would urge, if it is at all possible and appropriate, for the government to take this good opportunity to fix that problem—if indeed it is easy to fix. I imagine that when cases are contested in this way there are some technical problems that maybe the rest of us cannot foresee, but I would certainly like to know what they are. It seems sensible to me to take the opportunity to use this bill to fix that problem and obviously at the same time fix the problem that has emerged in relation to the large Maltese community.
I am not going to add any further to those comments, because many of my colleagues have already raised a range of other issues. I am pleased to be able to speak about citizenship. It is an important part of the fabric of our country; it is important for all of us who welcome so many new citizens and see the happiness and delight that there is across so many faces when people know that they have been formally welcomed into our community. Let’s make sure that we continue to do that and continue to support them rather than putting in place silly, arbitrary rules like this increase to four years that will do nothing to enhance their experience of Australia and nothing to ensure that they become the upstanding and worthy citizens that we hope all people who take out Australian citizenship will become.
I wish to speak in support of the amendment to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 moved by the member for Watson and comment on some of the remarks that have been made in this debate to date. A number of speakers have mentioned recent statements by Sheikh al-Hilali. It is my view that those statements are not consistent with the position of a leader of a great religion in this country. They are not merely demeaning and insulting to women, although they are clearly that; they are insulting to men as well, the implication being that men are unable to control their sexual urges. The fact is that the vast majority of men are perfectly capable of doing that. They do not entertain the idea of rape for a nanosecond. They understand perfectly well that no means no and they are resentful of the proposition that all men are prospective rapists, a proposition to which the sorts of comments that Sheikh al-Hilali made gave some aid and comfort.
I also want to express my concern about the fact that we have been witnessing in this country one of the oldest political tricks in the book, which is gaining political popularity and advancement through attacking and denigrating an unpopular group in the community. No doubt Muslims are unpopular in Australia. Courtesy of the work of Osama bin Laden and the Bali bombers, I have no doubt they have a low ‘approval rating’. If you asked many Australians what they thought of Muslims, you would not get a very positive answer. There is a lot of fear, mistrust and misunderstanding about. The question is: what do we do about that? We can either turn away from each other in fear, mistrust and misunderstanding or we can turn towards each other, reach out and try to understand each other. But the government wants Australians to think that it does not like Muslims either. We look at statements by Prime Minister Howard. In August he said:
There is a section, a small section of the Islamic population ... which is very resistant to integration.
He went on to say:
Fully integrating means accepting Australian values, it means learning as rapidly as you can the English language if you don’t already speak it.
In February Treasurer Costello said:
There are countries that apply religious or Sharia law; Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under Sharia law, these are countries where they may feel at ease, but not Australia.
The member for Mackellar said of the hijab in public schools that the headscarf was being used as an ‘iconic item of defiance’ and that although in an ideal society you should not ban anything:
... this has really been forced on us because what we’re seeing is a clash of cultures.
The member for Mackellar is on a unity ticket with Osama bin Laden on that one.
But, if you genuinely thought Muslims were a problem in Australia, what sorts of things might you do? You could try to reduce or contain their numbers, but the government has not done that. The number of Muslims has increased. Or you could take the view that things might improve if Muslims became more like the locals. The most obvious way to achieve that is to have young Muslim boys and girls going to the same schools as other Australian boys and girls, growing up together and learning about each other. This is how things happened at my primary school. We had never heard of multiculturalism, and we were guilty of calling the other kids wogs, dagos and so on, but the boy across the road from me was Hungarian, his mates, whom I also got to know, were Polish, another kid down the road who was a mate of mine was Greek, and so it went. But is the government doing this? No! We get more non-government religious schools springing up all the time. If the Howard government were serious about bringing Muslims in from the cold, it would be educating them in government schools.
Recently, the Treasurer very courageously lectured Muslims from the Australian Christian Forum about religion and politics. There was one thing he said in that particular lecture that did make some sense to me, which was about how Turkey has achieved success as a Muslim country where religion and politics are separated. Law and politics are in the public domain; religion is a private matter. I think he mentioned the role of the great and wise founder of the Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, in securing this separation, bringing in the rule of law and creating a country where people do not seek to impose their religious convictions and beliefs on others. Mr Costello said:
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk ... found modern Turkey as a secular state ... He should be held out as a model of leadership for the modern Islamic world.
The separation of the state from religion liberates both. It preserves freedom for religion. It liberates the church from the baggage of unpopular and difficult political decision making. It liberates the State from the religious dogma which at times, has held back scientific progress.
I agree with the Treasurer on this point, and I have been making the same point myself in numerous speeches at Muslim gatherings ever since 11 September, 2001 forced us to confront and think about these issues with real urgency. But what was missing from the Treasurer’s holding up of Turkey as a role model was any reference to the role played by education.
According to a background paper to a recent World Bank study on the Turkish education system, over 98 per cent of all students are educated in government primary and secondary schools. Less than two per cent are educated in non-government primary and secondary schools. Non-government schools do not receive any direct government funding at all. There is some indirect subsidisation of private outlays on education, but the actual sources of funding for the miniscule non-government school sector are private foundations and firms—and, of course, household funds. So, when the Treasurer holds up Turkey as a model of successful separation of church and state, he should also come clean about how they achieve it—basically, no non-government schools. But here we are headed in the opposite direction: a government whose hostility to government schools is giving us a fragmented community without common values.
The other thing I think the government could do if it were serious about tackling the problem of fundamentalist jihadist Islam is to strengthen the hand of moderate Muslims. There is no doubt that the struggle being waged by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda is every bit as targeted against moderate Islamic leaders and countries as it is against the West. Tony Blair pointed this out very clearly recently, and sometimes Howard government ministers say similar things as well. But, when Tony Blair said it, what you heard was a loud groan from the aforementioned moderate Muslims, because his actions in going into Iraq and parroting George Bush’s foreign policy have not helped moderate Muslims—they have undermined them.
It is the same thing here. The words of the Howard government might be about supporting moderate Muslims in their war with the fundamentalists, but their actions are all in the opposite direction. Iraq is the most spectacular example of the way we radicalise Muslims and drive them into the arms of Osama bin Laden, but there are others. The West will not put a fraction of the time, money and effort that it has put into Iraq into securing a Palestinian state. That is something which would help the moderate Muslims. And when Muslims get singled out for criticism by Howard government personnel which is not based on logic—for example, there are the comments that Muslims need to speak English, when in fact it is true that there are people from many non-English-speaking background nations who struggle with English in the first generation, and it makes no sense to single out Muslims in this regard; and there are questions about Muslims and the hijab, where the member for Mackellar singled out one particular group and made no reference to others and their particular attire—then, again, the position of moderate Muslims is undermined.
Treating Muslims as whipping boys and girls may be smart politics, but it does nothing to build a functioning, tolerant, successful society. What it does is play into the hands of Osama bin Laden et cetera, who are trying to foment a religious war by persuading Muslims that non-Muslims are engaged in a religious war against them, and, therefore, that terrorism is a form of self-defence.
We have, both in Australia and in other countries around the world, a problem not with Muslims so much as with religious fundamentalism in whatever form it appears—Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, you name it. Anyone seeking to impose their religious convictions on others ought to be resisted and politely, but firmly, informed of the importance of the separation of church and state as well as the rule of law. From this ground there can be no retreat.
I have a number of Islamic constituents on trial for alleged breaches of the antiterrorism laws. I make no comment on the individual cases. The rule of law through due process is at work here, as it should be. I also have a number of Exclusive Brethren constituents. I do not know how many people watched the ABC’s Four Corners report about the activities of the Exclusive Brethren or have read some of the numerous newspaper reports in recent times about the activities of the Exclusive Brethren both in Australia and in New Zealand. But those who have seen the reports could not be other than very concerned about them. For the benefit of those who have not followed them, the media reports raised issues of tax exemption being used for personal enrichment, tax exemption being used for an organisation which is political in character, tax fraud, social security fraud, flouting Family Court orders, mental abuse and running on to the political playing field.
Exclusive Brethren members do not vote—in Australia we have always regarded voting as one of the responsibilities of Australian citizenship—but it is now apparent that they are intensely involved in the political process. There is a strong undercurrent in the reports that they put political money and resources towards supporting the conservative parties—the Liberal and National parties. There has been a deafening silence from the Liberal and National parties on the revelations about the Exclusive Brethren. I think two things need to happen: the Liberal and National parties need to cut off any campaigning or financial links they may have forged with the Exclusive Brethren and there need to be some inquiries into the allegations of tax fraud, social security fraud, flouting of Family Court orders, and government bankrolling of schools which ban computers and progress to university, among other things.
I have no doubt that, if similar allegations had been made concerning a mosque, we would have had government ministers falling all over themselves to get up in parliament and denounce the mosque and announce various inquiries and action. And do not think that Muslims do not notice this kind of double standard. A woman by the name of Irfan Yusuf in the Canberra Times on 10 October described the Prime Minister as condemning:
… certain isolationist practices of Muslims before defending a fringe Christian sect with even more isolationist practices.
So they do notice.
I have no doubt that getting people from all racial and ethnic and religious backgrounds to live together in peace and tolerance and harmony is the most urgent task facing the world today. Indeed, it probably always has been. And taking on fundamentalist or jihadist Islam is part of that task—no doubt at all. And I am prepared to sign up for whatever reshaping or redefining of multiculturalism is necessary to rescue it from some of the ‘anything goes’ cul-de-sacs down which it has led us. But this can only be done by people with clean hands on a secular basis, not by people who want to pander to Christian fundamentalists on the side. The idea that you can get away with shining a bright light on some corners and leaving others covered up in festering darkness is just nonsense.
Australian citizenship must be about equality of treatment before the law. It has to be about tolerance and respect for others and an understanding that we are not all the same. But that tolerance and respect cannot be shown to those who will not show it in turn and who seek to impose their religious convictions on others. It does not matter what religious convictions we are talking about—the same standard has got to apply. But the government has done none of those things. In relation to Muslims, it has constantly undermined moderate Muslims. Now it seeks to profit politically from all this, scoring off the Muslims, saying, ‘Oh dear, the Muslims are a problem; they need to lift their game.’ Perhaps, but what is just as important is that the government lifts its game lest its political success comes at the cost of a society which is divided, fragmented and maybe, in the years to come, terrified.
What messages should the government be sending out to new citizens? At citizenship ceremonies, I have drawn attention to the pledge of loyalty to Australia and its people, which comes with the words:
... whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
These words are worthy of some reflection. They do not mean that you obey those laws you agree with or those laws that do not conflict with your religious views; they mean that you pledge to obey Australia’s laws without qualification and that you have committed to Australia’s democratic beliefs. The question that Australian citizens naturally ask is: what does Australian citizenship mean? I believe that citizenship and the present racial tensions in our society impose obligations on both new citizens and old citizens. Both new and old citizens have obligations to participate in and enrich Australian life, to reach out to each other and not to turn away from each other in fear, mistrust or misunderstanding. I believe in the kind of multiculturalism which says that everyone is valued and everyone is valuable and has something unique to offer to Australian society. I do not believe in the kind of multiculturalism that says that you do not make any kind of effort to fit into Australian society; it is good enough to seek out other people of your own background and live a separate, isolated existence largely in their company.
I think Australia is a terrific country. The first reason for that is that we have freedom of speech and expression. We have to really appreciate just how important that is and make sure that we do not undermine it with a veil of political correctness and do not create a climate where people are afraid to say what they really believe. Secondly, in Australia we have a great tradition of irreverence. We are not obsequious to authority. We are prepared to question and challenge those in power. As members of parliament—I know it is the same for others here as well—we are often on the receiving end of this culture, but I think it makes Australia a far better place than those countries where people line up and salute all manner of corrupt and evil rulers simply because, for example, they wear a military uniform. Thirdly, we have tradition of tolerance and no tradition of civil strife and conflict. This is a great blessing, and we should respect it by ensuring that people do not bring into Australia the fights and struggles of the old world and that they leave them at the door. Fourthly, as I said before, Australia has a very clear separation between church and state. There is no place for religious fanaticism or intolerance. No-one is entitled to impose or enforce their views on others. In Australia, there is strong support for freedom of religious expression and worship, and an equally strong understanding that religion is a private matter and is not to be confused with politics or the law, which are public matters. Someone’s right to freedom of expression and freedom of action stops at the point of their neighbour’s nose. You cannot interfere with others.
In closing, I want to say that I believe that Australian citizenship is a wonderful thing. We can reflect back on 1948, when the great Chifley Labor government introduced the concept of Australian citizenship. At that time it was a novel concept, and some people thought it might impair our allegiance to the British motherland—a view which should not be dismissed as frivolous but must rather be understood in the context of that time. In the wake of the sacrifices made during the Second World War and the decision to take into this country an unprecedented influx of new migrants, we appreciated back then and we have appreciated with increasing force ever since that we have a more independent role to play in the world. Of course, Britain remains the source of our legal system, our parliamentary democracy, our language and much of our culture, but we have, in the time since the Labor government legislated for Australian citizenship, been able to welcome 3½ million new citizens. We have become a nation of people from many different lands united in a distinctive Australian identity. I welcome that and hope that it continues for a very long time to come.
It seems surprising that the government has decided to revise the 1948 Citizenship Act, given that it has spent the last 10 years attempting to return Australia to the 1950s with a series of regressive and decidedly retro policies. The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 will make substantial changes to the legislation governing citizenship and place necessary restrictions upon those who may apply for citizenship, as well as reorganising some of the processes by which citizenship can be granted and revoked.
While Labor understands the need for a revision of the 1948 Citizenship Act, there are some elements of the citizenship bill presently before the House which are just plain unfair and some elements which are downright worrying. In particular, subclause 17(4) is deeply concerning as it raises important questions about our civil liberties and the freedom of information in this country that the government is yet to provide any reassuring answers to. For those not entirely familiar with the many amendments proposed by this bill, subclause 17(4) states that the minister for immigration must not approve an application for citizenship where ASIO has provided an adverse security assessment of that person. In other words, if ASIO decides that a person represents a real or potential threat to the country, the minister cannot, by law, approve their application for citizenship.
There are several things wrong with this, not the least of which is the fact that the minister’s power—that is, the power of an elected representative and member of parliament—would be secondary in these cases to the power of a non-elected, non-accountable body which functions under a heavy veil of secrecy. Why should a non-elected body be above parliament and above the minister? That issue aside, there is also the question of how and why ASIO’s assessments are made. It is not overstating the case to say that Australia’s recently implemented terrorism laws give this organisation an almost unlimited amount of power—power which its representatives are free to use in any number of situations and a power which they exert under a screen of anonymity and institutional silence.
As we have already seen in the case of Jack Thomas, ASIO are allowed to declare someone a security risk without ever revealing the sources of their information, providing proof of their claims or revealing anything about their investigation to the subject of it. In short, someone can be accused, tried and condemned often without even knowing they have been under suspicion and without any recourse to the legal challenges which are every citizen’s supposed right in this country.
In the case of risk assessment for the purposes of a citizenship application, ASIO is not required to reveal anything about their assessment except its result—that is, they can label someone a threat and effectively deny them citizenship without ever having to reveal why, and the subject of this assessment has absolutely no choice but to accept this. This is a violation of our civil liberties however you wish to look at it, yet the government seem completely unconcerned. They seem perfectly happy to let shadowy, non-representative organisations decide the future of potential migrants to this country, despite the obvious opportunities for misuse and abuse such a system would provide. These civil liberties concerns are serious, as is the minister’s lack of discretion in the face of an ASIO assessment.
Also worthy of the House’s attention is the fact that, under the present draft of this bill, the minister does not have discretion over citizenship applications made by applicants who have spent more than five years in a foreign prison. Clause 19D(6) in the proposed government amendments requires that any applicant who has spent more than five years in prison in their home country or overseas may not become a citizen. Flat rule, no negotiation allowed. This is an obvious example of how the government sees everything in black and white terms—if you have served time in jail, you must be a dangerous criminal and a threat to Australia.
We on this side of the House acknowledge that life is a little more complicated than that. For example, what if a refugee, after having lived here with their family for the required length of time, applies to become a citizen of the country which took them in their hour of need? What if that refugee had become a refugee because they had opposed the government in their home country and had been tortured, persecuted and imprisoned for speaking out against injustices? What if that refugee had been imprisoned for five years, 10 years or even 20 years, perhaps illegally, perhaps without charge or trial, for the simple crime of criticising a tyrant like Saddam Hussein or Than Shwe?
Is that refugee the kind of dangerous person who deserves to have their application for citizenship denied? According to the current bill, yes, that person has served time in prison; therefore, they are a threat to Australia and cannot become a citizen. Never mind that their crime was one of bravery and strength, and never mind that they may have been standing up for freedom of speech, freedom of political beliefs and freedom to live—all things which are entirely in keeping with ‘Australian values’, which the Prime Minister keeps going on about. Never mind that their imprisonment was unjust and possibly illegal; all that counts is that they have served time in prison. Labor would like to see some ministerial discretion allowed when assessing citizenship applications from those who have served time in jail, rather than the present blanket rule, in acknowledgement of the fact that circumstances are not always as black and white as the government would seem to believe.
This bill contains many changes, not the least of which is an increase in the age at which people can be considered exempt from the requirement to have a basic knowledge of English. At present, that age is 50. This bill will see it increased to 60. In relation to this, I would like to bring to the attention of the Main Committee the fact that the government recently admitted, before the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee considering estimates, to slashing $10.8 million from the Adult Migrant English Program—the front-line program that offers migrants to this country their best chance of properly integrating into our society and becoming a valuable part of it. The government has slashed $10.8 million from a program that can mean the difference between a life of acceptance and a life lived on the periphery, never quite feeling at home and never quite understanding what is being said.
At the same time, this bill will increase from 50 years to 60 years the age at which citizens are no longer required to have a working knowledge of English. Where are these extra people going to get their English training? How will the migrant English program, already stretched by such brutal cuts to its funding, cope with an increase in student numbers? This is yet another example of the government not thinking things through properly. On the one hand it shifts the goalposts so that more people have to learn English while on the other it snatches away the funding for the very programs which would accommodate this. Which is it to be? Is the government going to face up to its responsibility to assist these people in becoming full and proper members of our society by speaking our language or is it going to take the cash and run, leaving migrants to muddle along as best they can? Of course these things cost money and, yes, it is money that the government would probably rather spend on something popular and vote producing, but in the long run the social costs of not properly funding the Adult Migrant English Program will be far greater than the present financial cost.
There is another issue raised by this bill, and that is the issue of ‘Australian values’ which has been so preoccupying the Prime Minister of late. The government seem to think that subscribing to Australian values should be a necessary requirement for attaining citizenship of this country, which is why I bring it up here today. By ‘Australian values’, they of course mean the things which they themselves have deemed vital and important. But, if it were to be the case that subscribing to ‘the world according to Howard’ was a necessary condition of Australian-ness, they would have to go ahead and strip me, along with hundreds of thousands of others like me, of our citizenship and our birthright, because I do not subscribe to a value system which allows for the five-year incarceration of an Australian citizen in an American military prison without even so much as a token trial. I, unlike the Prime Minister, think it is wrong to deprive innocent refugees of their liberty when their only crime is to seek a better, safer and happier life in this country. I do not believe that it is ‘necessary’ or ‘important’ or ‘key to our security as a nation’ that our young people continue to be sent to fight an illegal war in a rapidly deteriorating country. Do these things make me less Australian? Am I somehow less worthy of citizenship because I believe in human rights, fair and equal justice and peace? It would seem so in the eyes of the Howard government, despite the fact that these are the very values upon which all good societies are built.
The government just does not seem interested in peace, human rights, justice or any of the positive values which this country used to be renowned for but which in the past 10 years have been allowed to fall by the wayside. It seems to be interested only in furthering its own power and silencing dissent by painting anyone who criticises it as a dangerous opponent to Australia at large and a threat to all of us. This is the subtext to any conversation about Australian values. But these values are not my values, Prime Minister. They are not the values of open-minded, tolerant, accepting Australians. They are not even the values of many of those who voted for the government last time. This government is out of touch, and the Prime Minister’s insistence on narrow-minded, jingoistic, 1950s Australian values just demonstrates that yet again.
In short, while overall this legislation is a step forward in adjusting and updating our citizenship legislation to face the changed realities of the present day, many aspects of the legislation seem ill considered and ill thought through. It is hard to believe that a government so in love with its own power and influence as the present one would be willing to place a non-elected organisation above the immigration minister in terms of final decision-making power over citizenship applications from those deemed to be a security risk, yet that is exactly what this legislation proposes to do.
It is similarly worrying—though not altogether surprising—that the government is prepared to grant ASIO the power to make such risk assessments without needing to justify their findings to the public or to a court of appeal. And of course there is the outright stupidity of slashing funding for migrant English education programs while at the same time increasing the number of people likely to be seeking these services by increasing the English-speaking exemption age from 50 to 60.
We acknowledge that changes to the citizenship legislation may be necessary in this present age of heightened threat to Australia, but we do not believe that the government should be allowed to threaten our civil liberties or effectively devolve power to an opaque and unrepresentative organisation in the name of this. Labor will support this bill, but I urge the government to support the amendments moved by the member for Watson.
The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 are part of a wider debate in this community which is being actively fostered by the government and gives rise to a considerable concern about where Australia’s society is heading, what the underlying ethos is for the community on which our society is built and what it is going to be in the future.
The citizenship legislation ostensibly proposes to change the period of eligibility for citizenship by extending it from two years to four years. Like the previous speaker, the member for Charlton, I support the amendments that have been moved by the member for Watson. The introduction of the legislation occurs in the context of a wider discussion initiated by the government under the guise of a discussion paper put out by the member for Goldstein which contains a number of suggestions, including a compulsory English proficiency test for new migrants and a range of other propositions, most of which are directed ultimately at pushing Australia back to a more monocultural world where it is universally acknowledged that there is a dominant perspective, a dominant set of values and a dominant cultural dimension which those with different origins are expected to adapt to, to adopt, and, in some respects, to genuflect to.
That is the subtext of what is happening with this legislation and a variety of things that the Howard government is pursuing. Of course, it is not a great secret as to why this is being pursued. We are seeing the slow, gradual revival of a monocultural, assimilationist philosophy as the core explanation for what Australia is, how our society functions, what its norms are and what its values are, and we are seeing the mounting expectation that people should comply with these autocratically determined values or norms—usually handed down by the Howard government or some members of its cheer squad in the media—and that those who do not are in some way guilty of being un-Australian, guilty of not fitting in and susceptible to exclusion and, sometimes, to the most extreme forms of exclusion, like deportation.
That is the subtext of all of the things that have been initiated in recent years by the Howard government, all for deliberate political purposes. To divide Australia—to single out particular groups of people, the vast bulk of whom are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, law-breaking or misbehaviour, and to brand them as being in some way inferior, as being in some way second-class citizens or as failing to fit the decreed definition of what it means to be Australian—is deserving of opprobrium and disdain from the majority of the community. To me such division is profoundly offensive. It threatens to return Australia to a situation where we are viewed with some fear and disregard by our neighbours; where, in the wider world, we are seen as a nation that has a dominant ethos that is racially driven; and where there is a set of implicit discriminations in the way our society functions that are designed to exclude particular kinds of people, to shut people out and to send messages that people of certain backgrounds, religions or ethnic origins are in some way secondary to or less Australian than the rest of us.
We should not in any way be naive about this, because in doing this the Howard government is clearly reflecting sentiments that are quite widespread in the Australian community. After decades of progress in eating away at those sentiments, driven by both Liberal and Labor governments—driven by prime ministers such as Malcolm Fraser just as much as by prime ministers such as Bob Hawke—after decades of progress in this country in eating away at racial discrimination, at intolerance and at dominant cultural identities that ultimately exclude other people, after decades of progress under governments of both major political parties, we now have a government headed by a man who has made it his mission to return Australia to a world where people who come from less dominant backgrounds are in some way relegated to a secondary position in Australian society. So let us be under no illusion: this is what this legislation is ultimately about. It is a small part of a wider strategy that is about excluding people. It is about differentiating. It is about dividing Australia. It is about ensuring that that underlying sentiment in much of the Australian community, which has slowly diminished, is legitimised and recognised as entirely appropriate and that discriminating against people on the basis of their racial or ethnic origin or religious orientation is mainstream. It is okay. It is normal. That is ultimately what this is all about.
Like most if not all members of the House, I have attended many citizenship ceremonies over my time in parliament and they are always, without exception, inspiring and moving events. They are profoundly Australian, because, compared with the kind of razzamatazz that you would typically see with equivalent events in some other countries, they are just a good balance. They are relatively low key. They do not go on for too long, usually. We sing the national anthem. We have a brief speech by one or two people—perhaps the mayor, or perhaps the federal or state member of parliament. There are the formalities of the ceremony and we hand over a certificate and some kind of symbol of the local area, like a native plant or something like that, and then subsequently there is a little bit of refreshment, photos and all those kinds of things.
In my experience, the people going through that ceremony are pretty well universally excited, proud and very pleased to be becoming Australian. In my electorate—more so than most—when I turn up to those ceremonies I see an extraordinary array of diversity. I see people from literally all around the world, and rarely do I see a dominant group of people. So it is not that common these days in the citizenship ceremonies I am part of to see people from one particular background as 30, 40 or 50 per cent of the group. Typically, you get all sorts and that is a fantastic thing for this country. It has made us a stronger, better country over the last 30 or 40 years—and long may that continue to happen.
But what the Howard government is doing is chipping away at the underlying sentiment which has made us such a success as a society in modern times: the underlying sentiment of tolerance, of decency, of recognition and acceptance of difference within a wider framework of commitment to the rule of law, of commitment to democracy and of commitment to equal treatment for men and women and an understanding that we all need to have space to live our own lives, to fulfil our own dreams and to pursue our own goals. That is what is at threat here. That is what is under attack here—an underlying ethos that is about real Australian values, true Australian values, not the American version that is so often peddled by the Prime Minister.
We should see Australian citizenship as something that we want people to take up. When people become permanent residents of this country—and certainly this was a dimension of the Hawke and Keating governments’ view on these issues—we should want them to become citizens. If you have acquired the right to permanent residency in this country, our starting point, from the position of government, should be that we want you to become a citizen. So why we would be actively putting barriers up, barriers that really raise the question of why, if this is necessary to try and exclude people or to make it harder for people to become citizens, were they granted permanent residency in the first place. It really flies in the face of the whole ethos of an inclusive notion of Australian citizenship.
The primary subtext, of course, is ultimately about Muslim Australians and is based on the views and in some cases the behaviour of an extremely tiny minority of people, and more particularly based on fears that reflect the views and behaviour of people from other countries who are neither Australian nor ever likely to become Australian. I find disgraceful that result of guilt by association, of the attribution of behaviours, views and motives that belong to people on the other side of the world from Australia who are entirely innocent of any misbehaviour, any wrongdoing or any law-breaking—the group vilification and attribution of those behaviours, attitudes and motivations to those people. The Howard government will be condemned by history for its chipping away at the underlying notion of decency and fairness in Australia and the still fragile notion that all people are entitled to a fair go and equal respect and equal opportunity irrespective of their religion, their race or their ethnicity.
Probably the largest group of Muslims in Australia are Turkish Australians—not typically associated with some of the more lurid headlines we see about al-Qaeda, about terrorism and about Islamic extremism. But in the welter of propaganda that is directed against Muslims in Australia, they are the kind of Muslims who are caught in the crossfire. Even something that is carefully and narrowly focused on one or two individuals, if it is not done in an appropriate way, ultimately ends up smearing large numbers of innocent law-abiding people who have integrated into our society, who continue to adhere to their religious beliefs, fulfil their religious obligations and, at the same time, are hardworking Australians who contribute to our society, go about their business and do not cause problems for others.
Like, I suspect, virtually every other member of the House, I find Sheikh al-Hilali’s expressed views on women totally offensive and outrageous. It is worth pointing out that had they been expressed in this country 40 years ago, the reaction would have been rather different. I can remember growing up hearing very similar views from people in equally prominent and important public positions. It is very clear from opinion poll data that there is a substantial minority of the Australian population, particularly men, who basically hold the same views. That does not justify Sheikh al-Hilali expressing these views, but we need to keep in mind the context that these views are by no means as exotic as we might like to think. It is to the great credit of our society that we have managed to change the dominant view about the role of women in our community and particularly about sexual violence, but we should not for a moment assume that that is totally entrenched or universal. It is not. So we need to keep in mind that those views are by no means totally exceptional in our community.
I condemn those views, but I also applaud the comments of Mick Keelty urging caution, particularly with respect to the media, with regard to the blanket condemnation of Muslims and the spreading of guilt by association. I want to mention one particular example of this which occurred in the Sunday Herald Sun on the weekend. It is normally a paper that I find basically pretty balanced and good; its politics are not exactly mine but, by and large, it does not tend to offend in this regard. However, my friend Khalil Eideh, who is a Labor candidate for the Legislative Council in Victoria and who is a Muslim of Arab origin, has been subject to an extremely unfair campaign over recent months of vilification and guilt by association on matters where his alleged misdeeds really do not stand up to any serious scrutiny.
This article was about a particular Lebanese Australian man who runs a website that is clearly extremist of some description or other, and he was described as having close links with Khalil Eideh. There was a photo of Khalil with that article, and the obvious purpose was to smear Khalil Eideh or to spread the guilt by implication to him because of his alleged association with an Islamic extremist. The evidence for this close association that was provided in the article consisted of two things: firstly, this particular man had attended community functions run by the Alawi Islamic Association, which Khalil has been the president of, and, secondly, he had put out a press release some months ago defending Khalil when he had been criticised in public. If that is close association, then there are an awful lot of very dubious characters around the place that I have to check my associations with, because that clearly has no connection with what any of us would see as genuine close association.
Khalil Eideh tells me that he barely knows this man, yet he is subject to guilt by association in the highest circulation newspaper in the country, which is suggesting that in some way this makes him an Islamic extremist. That is the kind of thing that is happening, and there are many more serious examples of this. That is the kind of thing that Mick Keelty was talking about. He was right to warn us about these things. But what is particularly disgraceful is that that kind of climate is being deliberately created by the Howard government for its own political purposes to divide Australians and to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment for its own political ends. That is where the real disgrace lies.
Finally, I cite an example of the successful integration in our community of a community in which at least half of the members come from a non-Christian background—probably half are Christian and half are Buddhist. They are Asian and they were subject to a lot of attacks and pressure about Asian immigration over the years, but they have triumphed and are a great success and, I might add, a great testament to former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser—and they are the Vietnamese community, with whom I have considerable contact. They have managed to survive and prosper in spite of often very negative contexts and now make a fantastic contribution to the Australian community.
One thing that is worth pointing out is that they still continue to campaign about events in Vietnam. They still continue to put pressure on the Vietnamese regime. They put pressure on members of parliament, and I note and applaud their attempts to persuade the Prime Minister to take a stronger line on human rights and corruption in Vietnam when he visits that nation in the very near future. I am happy to be associated with those campaigns. I am very pleased to note that one particular individual, Reverend Nguyen Van Ly, whose case I raised with the Vietnamese government when he was in prison several years ago, has finally, belatedly been released. However, there are many others in that position.
All of this campaigning by the Vietnamese community in Australia is done legally, lawfully and entirely within the laws and norms of Australian society. Is there anything wrong with that? No, there is not. It is a good thing, because ultimately Australia will benefit. So, if ever you want to see an example of where multiculturalism or where respect for each other’s different religions and origins actually benefits Australia, it is the Vietnamese community.
I support the position adopted by the member for Watson on these issues, but I again condemn the Howard government for playing with fire and creating and fostering a climate in this community which ultimately will do great damage to Australia and to the social harmony, diversity and tolerance on which we have managed to build a very successful society.
The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 is to replace the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. Generally it will facilitate dual citizenship and allow people to resume or take up Australian citizenship. It also includes proposals announced by the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—in particular, extending the waiting period for citizenship from two years to four years. It includes security checks before citizenship approval and provision for increased personal identifiers such as iris scans. Security risk assessment has to be undertaken by ASIO in order to get citizenship approval. I suppose aspects of this bill do not surprise me, because it involves the Prime Minister imposing his values on the Australian community.
In relation to the extension of the waiting period from two years to four years, an increase from two years to three years was previously flagged after discussion with COAG. But the inference in relation to the extension to four years is that somehow this will help us in relation to the fight against terrorism. I can tell you: terrorist sleepers will wait four years to take out citizenship if that is what is involved in engaging in a terrorist act. I believe it is a retrograde step to go to four years. We have had positive examples of the two-year experience, and I think the case for change has not been made.
The case for change, frankly, is a case that is marketed to the lowest common denominator in our community that thrives on fear and prejudice. It basically takes us back to the old attitudes that this country experienced when the White Australia policy was alive and well and supported by both sides of politics. In my opinion, two years is a sufficient period before someone can take out citizenship, if that is what they want to do. I would suggest that the government would be hard-pressed to bring forward positive examples to support their case for four years. Let’s hear them. Let’s see them. Let’s see where the two-year period has failed us. I do not believe it has. I do not believe it is sufficient to have a policy change of four years that is going to affect people residing in this country.
We should be encouraging people to take out citizenship and we should be avoiding the trap of making it harder. The interesting thing is that the statistics show that citizenship in this country has been taken up in large numbers. DIMIA provided community information summaries which showed, at the 2001 census, the rates of citizenship—the average rate for overseas born people being 75.1 per cent—for the following nationalities: Lebanon, 97 per cent; UK, 65.7 per cent; USA, 64.3 per cent; New Zealand, 36.5 per cent; Vietnam, 96 per cent; and China, 82.6 per cent.
The interesting thing is that, according to the census of 2001, the top birth places of eligible noncitizens were the UK with 36.9 per cent and New Zealand with 21.9 per cent—the ones that were not taking it up were eligible people from Anglo countries. Italy was 4.7 per cent; Malaysia, three per cent; Germany, 2.5 per cent; China, excluding the SARs and Taiwan, 2.2 per cent; the Netherlands, 1.8 per cent; India, 1.7 per cent; Ireland, 1.7 per cent; Indonesia, 1.6 per cent; and others, 22 per cent. So I do not accept that the need to move to four years is justified on the basis of the fear of terrorism. That is garbage.
In relation to the proposal by the parliamentary secretary and the Prime Minister that we have a citizenship test plan and the release of this document and discussion paper Australian citizenship: much more than a ceremony, I would strongly assert that the current requirements are sufficient. We have had a good take-up rate, and to turn around and say again that we will look at the overseas examples and that somehow this is going to make it better under this values test for Australian citizenship is just an absolute fraud that is being perpetrated on the Australian community and, in my view, is again an instance where we are pandering to the prejudice that is out there amongst not all but a section of the Australian community. I say the Australian people deserve better and, when you occupy the prime ministership in this country, we expect leadership. This is not leadership; it is a crass attempt to garnishee votes and, quite frankly, a crass attempt to feed into the worst elements of our society.
What does the United Kingdom use for preparatory testing for citizenship? Here are some questions from that test:
Which of these courts uses a jury system – magistrates, crown, youth or county court?
This is a test for UK citizenship? Other questions are:
Your employer can dismiss you for joining a trade union – true or false?
Which of these telephone numbers can be used to dial the emergency services ... ?
Which of these statements is correct – a television licence is required for each television in a home or a single television licence covers all televisions in a home?
I ask: do we want to adopt this test or something similar for those becoming Australian citizens? Get real; get fair dinkum.
What is Canada’s test? Some of their questions are:
Who are the Aboriginal peoples of Canada?
Where did the first European settlers in Canada come from?
These are reasonable questions. Others are:
What does Confederation mean?
What part of the Constitution legally protects the basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians?
What are the two official languages of Canada?
What does the Canadian flag look like?
What is the population of Canada?
Who is Canada’s Head of State?
How many electoral districts are there in Canada?
What is the capital city or the province or territory in which you live?
I would say that Canadian citizens by birth would have trouble answering a number of those questions let alone people who aspire to be citizens. But the more fundamental question I would ask is: what value does a test like that add to a person actually becoming a Canadian citizen? I think the answer to that is self-evident: none.
The US test questions—and I note these because they are in the parliamentary secretary’s discussion paper and they should be put on the record—include:
What colours are the stripes on the flag? Answer: The stripes on the flag are red and white.
Name the highest part of the Judiciary Branch of our Government? ...
In what year was the Constitution written? ...
Where is the White House located? ...
Which President was the first Commander in Chief of the US military? ...
Write or read aloud “America is the land of the free”, “Only Congress can declare war” or “The teacher was
proud of her class”.
In the Netherlands, the paper says questions include such things as:
the applicant is shown pictures of a man at a post office and asked what does the man need – the options are a passport, bank card or identity card shown in picture format
the applicant is played a recorded message and asked whether the message was a news bulletin or weather forecast
the applicant is shown a picture of a rain cloud and asked to look at the picture and say out loud what the weather is like today.
These are the examples that are contained in the parliamentary secretary’s discussion paper, and they need to be read out to show how ridiculous each and every one of those tests is in each of those countries which say, ‘If you can answer this test, it qualifies you for citizenship of our country.’ To me, what qualifies you for citizenship of a country is something very different. I think it is contained in our citizenship pledge:
From this time forward ...
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its People,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
That is a pledge to Australia and its people—not to a foreign monarch. That was taken out, which allowed a lot of Irish people to come forward and take out citizenship. But it is a pledge that is simple and yet encapsulates it all. Notwithstanding that, people will take that pledge and not comply with Australia’s laws or Australia’s values. They will breach the law. They will fall into error. But that does not disqualify that particular procedure, which I would argue is the best procedure for this country to adopt. It does not require the necessity of going to the next level of a citizenship test or, indeed, this view of people needing English ability and a more knowledgeable view of the English language before they can take out citizenship of this country.
If we had always applied the test that some people are currently proposing, many people would not have taken out citizenship and many of us would not be here today, because our parents would not have got in in the first place. I defy this Prime Minister, this parliamentary secretary or anyone to argue that those migrants have not made a contribution to this country or that the problems they may have had with English in the first place were not overcome by efforts on their part. True, some people have not gone to the next level, but the next generation also needs to be looked at in terms of the overall package when someone takes out citizenship.
The Hawke and Keating governments poured money and resources into the English language program to encourage people to take up English, to be able to access the workforce and all things within the Australian community. There is no doubt that it is beneficial—and no-one is arguing that it is not—to have a knowledge of the English language. But to have a disqualifier because of it on someone taking out citizenship! A number of kids in our schools would not pass the test if you believed the assertions of some people about the quality of English that is undertaken in our schools.
We need to be very careful that we do not become too self-righteous, too holy and too prescriptive about what it takes to be an Australian citizen, because the greatest thing that this country has had going for it certainly is the postwar migration. The Olympics in Sydney were achieved on the basis of diversity, tolerance and understanding in this country. That is how Australia accumulated the votes to get the Olympics in the year 2000. We were a beacon to the world. Now we are turning on ourselves with this narrow, puritanical view of the world—this view that basically puts English above all else and does not give credit to the quality of the individuals.
We should be out there helping people, encouraging people to become more articulate in the English language, but I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker: you will never hear me say that it is a compulsory requirement, that it is what makes you a good citizen or that it is what makes you eligible to become a citizen. I think, quite frankly, that that attitude is the wrong attitude and it is one that should be resisted.
We should be learning from the mistakes of the past. We should be learning from the mistakes of the White Australia policy—the fear of the Chinese, the fear of the yellow hordes that formulated a lot of policy in the early part of the last century. The aliens act saw people having their names and addresses recorded, being photographed and being required to provide their future addresses when they moved to them. There was the fear of the alien and the internment of the alien, where you put everyone into a class.
To me the values have to be universal values, because what is it to be Australian in terms of hopes and aspirations? It is not necessarily knowing Bradman’s score—knowing that his average fell short of 100. It is not our sporting history; it is about putting in. I am a lawyer by trade so, for me, it is about universal values, human rights values, the rule of law. But you do not give someone a legal test before you say, ‘You are good enough to be an Australian citizen.’ That is a disqualifier. As I said, it is quite wrong to hold language up to the rest of the community to say we are going to get better citizens. What you are going to do is disqualify a whole class of people whose forebears, history has shown, made great contributions to this country. You spit in their face. It is a lack of respect and it is a lack of recognition of diversity. It is a narrowness. It is one of the things that has the coalition of the willing in trouble in Iraq.
We should not be going after the human spirit here. We should not be judgemental. We should have a situation where we accept a set of standards and a set of values that are common values and a situation where, if those values are ascribed to, we accept people in good faith. We do not have a presumption of guilt against people because they cannot necessarily speak English as fluently as we do.
I will not go into the history of this country, where certain tests were imposed on a certain person in the thirties to exclude him from this country because he was on the left of the spectrum, because the government back then was worried about his politics. I would ask the government to rethink a few of these things, because they are dead wrong and they are entering into a dark chapter in our history.
Can I take this opportunity to say to my colleague the member for Banks: ‘ditto’ on a wonderful speech. I am very pleased to be speaking to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 today. I would like to begin with some history on the Australian Citizenship Act. With its passing into law on 29 January 1949, the Australian Citizenship Act established Australian citizenship as a legal category for the very first time. The act was, and remains, a significant piece of legislation in Australia’s history—one that continues to provide the key guidelines for how Australian citizenship is legally recognised and defined. Since its introduction, the 1948 act has been amended some 36 times. Many of these amendments were introduced to make the 1948 act more reflective of our growing migrant population and Australia’s changing relationship to Britain and to erase instances of discrimination contained in earlier versions of the act.
The 2005 bill before the House today and the additional amendments that the government introduced to the bill in October this year will replace the old Australian Citizenship Act 1948. Some of the amendments contained in this bill are an improvement on the 1948 act and, as such, I and many of my other colleagues readily welcome them. Many of these improvements encompass recommendations made by the Australian Citizenship Council in a report it released on 18 February 2000.
This bill also introduces a number of new provisions that the government has sought to justify as necessary measures aimed at better securing Australia against the threat of terrorism. These provisions were first hinted at by the Prime Minister himself in a press release dated 8 September last year, which was titled ‘Counter-terrorism laws strengthened’. Among other things, these new security measures include a greatly expanded role for ASIO in the area of citizenship, especially in relation to the granting of citizenship, new restrictions on the eligibility criteria for Australian citizenship that I would say go backwards rather than forwards and the introduction of new discretionary powers that will enable the minister to directly intervene in decisions regarding the granting of Australian citizenship, including the ability to deny citizenship to individuals regardless of whether they satisfy the citizenship eligibility criteria or not.
Whatever position one takes on these new measures, the very nature of these changes to our citizenship laws demand that they be given serious and detailed consideration. One of the welcome changes brought about by this bill relates to section 17 of the 1948 act. For Australian citizens who had renounced their Australian citizenship under section 17 of the 1948 act, the new bill makes provisions allowing them to resume their Australian citizenship if they are found to be of good character. Under proposed section 21 of the new bill, children of former Australian citizens who lost their citizenship under section 17 will also be able to acquire Australian citizenship by conferral.
These are improvements to Australian citizenship laws, and the opposition supports them. However, under section 21 of the 2005 bill, children of Australian citizens who renounced their citizenship under section 18 of the 1948 act will still not be able to acquire Australian citizenship. In effect, this is the first of a series of discriminatory clauses introduced in this bill. Both provisions have significant implications for Australia’s Maltese community, and because I have a very large Maltese community in my electorate it is my responsibility to put their concerns on record here in this place. Children of Australian citizens who renounced their citizenship under section 18 of the 1948 act should be given the same rights and access to Australian citizenship as those children of Australian citizens who renounced their citizenship under section 17 of the old act. They should be given equal opportunity in their bid for citizenship, as was recommended by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee in its inquiry into the position of expatriates. I, along with many of my colleagues, again call on the government to amend this obvious discrepancy in Australia’s citizenship laws. It is one which is unnecessary, discriminatory and unfair.
I want to turn to the new security measures that this bill introduces to Australia’s citizenship laws. According to clauses 17(4), 24(4) and 34 of the new bill, the minister is prohibited from approving a citizenship application while an adverse or qualified ASIO security assessment is in force, and this new statutory requirement—
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 4.00 pm
As I was saying before the interruption of the debate, according to clauses 17(4), 24(4) and 30(4) of the new bill, the minister is prohibited from approving a citizenship application while an adverse or qualified ASIO security assessment is in force. This new statutory requirement will apply to all applicants for Australian citizenship, whether by descent, by conferral or by resumption. In effect, this gives ASIO the power of veto over the granting of Australian citizenship.
One concern that has been voiced by a number of civil liberty groups is that this new arrangement has the potential to undermine an individual’s ability to properly appeal an adverse decision regarding his or her application for citizenship because the Attorney-General can certify that a person is either not to be notified of an adverse security assessment or that evidence deemed to jeopardise Australia’s national security should be heard in secret and kept from the applicant and his or her legal team during the appeals process.
The bill also introduces new provisions for the collection and storage of, as well as access to, personal identifiers used to verify a person’s identity during the application for citizenship. These include fingerprints and handprints, height and weight, a head and shoulders photograph, an iris scan, a signature and other possible identifiers which the minister is given the power to add to the bill at a later date. As it stands, the 2005 bill contains no safeguards that would prevent it from being amended in the future to make it permissible for personal information, ostensibly collected for the purposes of a citizenship application, to become accessible to other parties. The bill also remains silent on how personal identifiers collected will be stored. As it currently stands, the bill already allows for the disclosure of these personal identifiers to the Australian states and territories. These weaknesses allow for too many loopholes in the bill, and I would like to see additional measures put in place that expressly prevent the exploitation of such loopholes in the future.
Under clauses 24(2) and 30(2) of the 2005 bill, the minister is also able to refuse an application for the conferral or resumption of citizenship, even in cases where an applicant successfully meets all of the necessary criteria for citizenship. The 2005 bill introduces further measures. Under the new bill, the age at which an individual is no longer required to have a basic knowledge of the English language when applying for Australian citizenship is raised from 50 years to 60 years of age. In addition, under clause 22 of the 2005 bill, the permanent residency requirement was originally extended from two to three years, but this has been further extended to four years under the new amendments recently introduced by the government. Permanent residents must now live in Australia for four years before they can apply for citizenship, though I note that the government has finally heeded the opposition’s calls to have the retrospective nature of clause 22 amended, meaning that those who become permanent residents before the 2005 bill and its new amendments come into effect will continue to be assessed according to the two-year residency requirement.
In the case of its initial decision to increase the number of years permanent residents are required to live in Australia from two to three years, the government argued that such an increase was necessary for security reasons. I was not privy to, and I am sure no-one else in this chamber was privy to, the security briefings that led to the decision to increase Australia’s residency requirements to three years. I am yet to be convinced that increasing the qualifying period for citizenship acts as an effective deterrent against those who may wish to harm us and to harm our society.
The government’s decision to increase the number of years permanent residents are required to live in Australia from two years to four years becomes even more tenuous as the government switches from national security concerns to its new argument that increasing the residency requirements to four years will give new migrants more time to learn about and to adapt to Australian values and, of course, to learn the English language.
It is hard to overlook some of the absurd assumptions that are operating behind this argument—for example, that it is somehow possible to quantitatively measure the amount of time it takes someone to absorb and adopt Australian values, or that Australian values are so far removed from the way of life and beliefs of other people that it takes four years to master them, or that increasing the amount of time people remain outside of the national community as permanent residents rather than Australian citizens will somehow encourage them to identify more fully with Australia. The list goes on.
The government also claims that lowering the age at which proficiency in English becomes compulsory for new citizens from 60 years to 50 years is a measure designed to further encourage integration because, without a working knowledge of English, getting by on an everyday basis becomes harder—if not impossible. Yet, at the same time that the government keeps drawing a link between proficiency in English and successful integration, it continues to slash funding to those very programs designed to help new migrants learn English. Today it has wiped away some $10.8 million in funding to those English language courses and programs traditionally available to new migrants under the Adult Migrant English Program.
To make matters worse, the government has also drastically cut core funding to migrant resource centres across Australia, which have long played a key role in helping migrants integrate into mainstream Australian society. If the government truly believed that the English language was the key to integration and if it were truly serious about promoting English language skills for new migrants, it would not be undermining the very programs, agencies and networks that are there to teach English to new migrants and to better facilitate their integration into society.
Something else is going on when we have a government that argues for the importance of English as a tool for integration yet simultaneously undermines the very premise of its argument by slashing funding to assistance programs and English language courses designed for new migrants. Something else is going on when we have a government that bases its decision to increase the residency qualifying period for citizenship on the claim that new migrants need more time to learn Australian values and the Australian way of life.
Through all of this, I believe that there is another political agenda at work. One of the overarching claims made by this government—and which this bill reinforces by making it harder for people to become Australian citizens—is that Australian citizenship is something that new Australians should value and respect because Australian citizenship is a privilege and not a right. This is the political line that the government has been feeding to the Australian public: we need to make Australian citizenship more valuable, new migrants need to be given more time to learn what the Australian way of life is all about and we need to change Australian citizenship laws accordingly.
The clear inference from all of this is that, as things presently stand, new Australian citizens, or should I say ‘ethnic Australians’, somehow do not value Australian citizenship enough and that they have failed to fully integrate and embrace ‘the Australian way of life’, a term that is now so frequently and loosely thrown around by this government that, in most instances, it is hard to know what is meant. It is not hard to conclude that, much like ‘national security’, invoking ‘the Australian way of life’ has simply become a convenient rhetorical and emotional tool used by the government to justify its extreme policies. This is the problem that the bill we are discussing today supposedly fixes.
What is missing is any evidence that such a problem actually exists in the first place. Where is the evidence confirming that those who acquire Australian citizenship do not value it enough? Where is the evidence that new migrants need more time to learn the Australian way of life? The answer is that no such evidence exists. This government has introduced a bill largely based on arguments, insinuations, warnings and conclusions that it cannot substantiate. It is making a tremendous amount of noise about fixing a problem that does not actually exist or is certainly not widespread and systemic. If you look at the last 30 years in Australia, they bear witness to a completely different reality—one in which the policy of multiculturalism has proved incredibly successful in providing a solid framework for integration and social harmony in this country. Multiculturalism has been one of Australia’s great post World War II policy success stories and, in an age as turbulent as ours, it is a model that Australia should be actively promoting to other parts of the world. Unfortunately this government is either unable or unwilling to see this.
In its attempt to convince us that migrant communities in Australia are failing to integrate and failing to adopt Australian values, this government is effectively helping to create the very problems and the very divisions that it says it wants to fix. This government plays on people’s fears, taking every opportunity it can to manipulate and exaggerate social division and social discord. That is what the media has aptly labelled ‘wedge politics’.
In the case of the bill before the House, the message that this bill sends is not simply directed at those wanting to become Australian citizens; it is also directed at mainstream Australia. The message it conveys to them is that migrants somehow do not value their Australian citizenship enough, that they take Australian citizenship for granted and that they fail to fully integrate and embrace the Australian way of life. Immigration, integration, refugees, Arabs, Muslims—these are the preferred hunting grounds of the government as it continues to stoke the flames of division, fear and suspicion in this country for its own political agenda.
In ways both subtle and often insidious, the Howard government and its cohorts in the media have sought to denigrate and effectively erase from public memory the enormous contribution that migrants have long made to Australia’s economy and to its social and cultural life under the policy of multiculturalism. The intended target behind this divisive politics is the policy of multiculturalism itself. John Howard has never liked multiculturalism—he never uses the word—and for the last 10 years this government has been slowly chipping away at many of the policies originally introduced under its name.
Making citizenship into a problem is one more example of the groundwork this government is laying for a future assault on multiculturalism. This is, I believe, where the government is heading in the lead-up to next year’s election. In the same way that John Howard used Tampa and the arrival of refugees in Australia to rally the nation against what was always an exaggerated threat, so the Prime Minister is looking to use the issue of integration and the supposed failure of multiculturalism to once again rally the nation against what has become another exaggerated threat.
This government redefines immigration as a national problem and a national crisis. It promotes a politics that continually questions Australians from different religious, ethnic and cultural backgrounds over their loyalty to Australia and portrays them as an ever-present threat to some imagined and supposedly more authentic Australian way of life. The government has intentionally used such politics to drive an artificial wedge into the very heart of Australian society, pitting one section of the Australian community against another against a backdrop of fear, suspicion and mutual recrimination. This is the reality of what is being labelled Australia’s ‘cultural wars’, where the progressive gains this country has made under multiculturalism are slowly whittled away and replaced by cultural, social and political conservativism that remains inflexible, unyielding and in complete denial when it comes to Australia’s history of migration and settlement.
If you constantly harass and vilify a community and use punitive measures against them, if you constantly challenge their loyalty and relevance to Australia, then that community will become defensive. Integration occurs when people are made to feel welcome and where their differences are respected, not derided and rejected. This is the lesson that multiculturalism has taught us. We have enjoyed a successful history of integration in this country under the policy of multiculturalism, and there is no evidence that it has been a failure. I am a product and proof of this success.
We cannot risk losing the social cohesion that multiculturalism has made possible because of the acts of a small minority. We need to engage and talk to those groups we are concerned about, not further alienate and marginalise them. We need to make them feel included, not excluded. These bills and measures run the risk of being counterproductive. Malcolm Fraser is right when he argues that the government’s actions seem intended to lay the groundwork for an election fought around the issue of race. And Irene Khan, head of Amnesty International, is right when she says that multiculturalism is not a policy governments choose to support or not support; rather, it is a global reality that governments need to learn to deal with. We have done a tremendous job in dealing with multiculturalism in Australia and we ought not to do anything that jeopardises our cohesive and coherent society.
The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 consolidate and rewrite the Citizenship Act 1948. Most of the legislation is concerned with the taking of citizenship, according to the Australian Citizenship Council report released on 18 February 2000. The latest amendments, tabled on 12 October 2006, include recommendations from the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into Australian citizenship and the inquiry of the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services into overseas adoption in Australia. These have resulted in amendments in relation to adoption rules and stateless persons.
This is one of those bills in which there are elements that the opposition can support and elements that we quite stringently oppose. We oppose the increase in a person’s residency from three to four years before they can apply for citizenship. We supported the changes from two to three years based on advice that was received in relation to the government’s security package, which it tabled in the parliament. After we received those classified security briefs, that decision was seen as achieving a correct balance. There has been no justification by the government as to why it has extended the period from three to four years, apart from its argument that it allows more time for people to integrate. It is an argument that we do not accept.
We also propose to amend the lack of ministerial discretion in citizenship claims by stateless persons who have been convicted for more than five years under foreign law. Although the position that we are taking will affect only a small minority of people, we feel that the lack of ministerial discretion will exclude people who have been jailed during dictatorial rule—for example, people in Iraq who were jailed for sedition under Saddam Hussein’s government—and therefore we are proposing those changes.
One thing we will not support is a short-sighted policy that delays people from committing to our values in the citizenship ceremony. We cannot support amendments that will cause migrants to take longer to integrate into our society by keeping them out of that mainstream. Australians everywhere should be concerned about this government’s proposal to make people wait four years before they make that very important commitment to our way of life. We want all migrants to be aware of our values when they come into our country, and delaying eligibility to take the citizenship pledge to four years shows how manipulative and how out of touch the Howard government really is.
I have had the privilege since 1993 as the member for Corio of attending many citizenship ceremonies, and I have to say that they are uplifting experiences. When you attend those citizenship ceremonies you come to understand the depth of the commitment that is being made by people who take out Australian citizenship and their sincerity and that of their families in making that decision. It ought not to be a decision that is prolonged. People who are willing to make that commitment ought to be welcomed into Australian society as quickly and as practicably as possible.
Gone are my days on the Colac Council in rural Victoria when after the business of the day—which often went into the late evening or early hours of the morning—the prospective citizens were wheeled in to take the oath as an afterthought to the main council meeting. What a dreadful way to induct new citizens into mainstream Australia—as an afterthought at the back end of a local council meeting, when everybody was tired and wanted to get home and the people had been sitting around for many hours waiting to take the oath of allegiance to Australia. Thankfully that has changed. It changed because the Labor government took this issue seriously. The Howard government presumably has the same sentiments, I would hope, in relation to new migrants and people wanting to become Australian citizens.
I must commend the City of Greater Geelong for the manner in which they conduct their citizenship ceremonies on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian community. They have structured a meaningful ceremony that invites participation from not only those migrants who are seeking to take out Australian citizenship but also their families and friends. It is a joyous occasion and one which, as I have said before, when I attend, I find most uplifting.
During the week I viewed Australian Storyand anybody who saw that could not help but be uplifted by the young Geelong man, Tim McCallum, who was featured. Tim has a promising singing career and he received admission some years ago to the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts. He turned up to that particular institution for the initial induction and then decided to go down to the beach for a swim with mates. He went into a wave and into a sandbank and suffered a serious injury, which thankfully has not terminated his singing career. But Tim may live for the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Tim McCallum has been a feature of those citizenship ceremonies. He does a lot of good work around the City of Greater Geelong. Part of his good work is that he sings at our citizenship ceremonies. It is always a wonderful occasion, much appreciated by those people taking out Australian citizenship and appreciated by the Geelong community. On the floor of this House I pay tribute not only to Tim McCallum’s courage but also to the fact that he makes himself available with a deep sense of public service to the Geelong community and shares his great musical talent with people who take out Australian citizenship on that very important day of decision for them.
We are very fortunate that in the City of Greater Geelong we have the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council and a migrant resource centre which operates under its auspices, serving people from non-English-speaking backgrounds who have come to Geelong to make their living, set up their families and make their contribution to Australia. Recently I attended the 30-year celebrations of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, which now operates under the name of Diversitat. That was another uplifting and joyous occasion, because there the Geelong community—and well over 20 per cent of the Geelong community comes from a non-English-speaking background—celebrated a council that was formed when, I think, five or six people sat around a table and decided that it was important that the ethnic communities got together to expand their contribution to Geelong and to make sure that appropriate services were available to support the many people who had migrated to Australia and settled in Geelong. Many of those, people who did not speak English, came to Australia to work in our factories in Geelong and in other business enterprises. They did not have a command of the English language and worked assiduously to learn the language and to make a contribution.
Let me put on the public record the appreciation of the Geelong community for the vision and sacrifice of the original founders of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council. I refer to John and George Angelovich, Joe Pavlovich, Eugene Pedzinski, Frank De Stephano and Mile Stojanovski. I want to also put on the public record the thanks of the Geelong community to Jordan Mavros, the former CEO of Diversitat, who made an enormous contribution to bringing communities together, resourcing them, supporting them and making them genuine participants in the wider multicultural community in Geelong. I pay a tribute also to Michael Martinez, the current CEO, and the staff of the migrant resource centre for the innovative ways that they continue to deliver services to Geelong’s migrant community, supported very well, I must say, by previous Labor governments and the current Bracks government. We are very fortunate that the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council is expanding. We have new groups that have just joined: the Indian, Maori, Sudanese, Nigerian and Chinese communities. Geelong is a multicultural city and we are proud of it. Let me say to the rest of this nation from the floor of this House that we have little tolerance for those who want to attack multiculturalism in our community.
I say to the Geelong Muslim community: you are most welcome in our midst. Along with the other communities that have built Geelong, you are playing your constructive part in a whole range of areas: your contribution to the economic life of Geelong, the educational life of the city and the cultural life of the city. We appreciate your involvement in the community, your membership of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council and, indeed, your participation in the wider Geelong community.
A most fascinating element of this whole debate has been discussion at the national level and at the community level on the issue of values. I am reminded of an article that appeared in the Sunday Times on Sunday, 17 September 2006, where some comments were made by Amir Ali, chairman of John Howard’s Islamic advisory board. He laid out in this article what would be considered some of Australia’s values. I have not met Mr Amir Ali—I am sure he is a well-meaning person in making comment on these matters and when I raise this I do not disparage his contribution to the debate at all. But when I went through the list of values that had been suggested in this article in relation to what Australians should assume, I must say some alarm bells began to ring.
Here is the list, which I extracted from this article, and various statements that were made about values. Firstly, we ought to have a respect for and tolerance of diversity of opinions. I would have thought that is a value for any civilised society. Surely that is not one that we ought to be trumpeting as uniquely Australian; that is a given for anybody who calls themselves a civilised person. Another value is loyalty to Australia. I have not met anybody who has taken out the oath who has not had in his or her heart a loyalty to Australia. I have to say, I grew up in a school where we never hoisted the Union Jack, and there were some very interesting reasons why that occurred. I guarantee that everyone who went through that school is no less a citizen for not hoisting the flag and saluting it every morning. I will not go into the reasons for it—it might have had something to do with my name. However, let me say that all of the people who went through that school in the main were civilised beings. There was no question of their loyalty to Australia. We had a bit of a problem with loyalty to a foreign monarch some 10,000 miles away, but we had no problem in our loyalty to Australia.
Other values here are respect for national icons and upholding democratic values and laws. They are a given for anybody who wants to live in any civilised society anywhere in the world. Treating everyone equally is an Australian value, isn’t it? Willingness to help others in times of trouble—what is unique about that? That is not just an Australian value; that is a global, universal value—as is valuing the environment and encouraging aesthetic values such as sport, music and the arts.
I have to say: if this is the debate we are going to have on values, let us have a real debate on values. Let us have a real debate on the fundamental values of the Prime Minister and the government. I have a good value that the Prime Minister ought to put out in the public arena: telling the truth. What about the value of truthfulness? We have had the ‘never ever’ GST, ‘children overboard’, Telstra and the war in Iraq. What about the universal value of truth? Maybe members opposite would like to debate that point. While I am at it, let us get down to the absolute truth and Australian values; what about a non-core value? Perhaps we ought to have core values and non-core values, like the PM’s core and non-core promises, because then we can get a more accurate fix on whether in fact a person is a good citizen or not.
He could make a commitment to come in on the core values and then call it a non-core value when you get here!
Thank you very much. The honourable member for Hotham is incisive in his analysis, as usual, and his contribution to this debate is most valued because the stupidity of the Prime Minister in harping on about values is that he has none himself. If he valued truth, he would not have been up to his ears in deceit about Iraq. I ask yet again: where are the weapons of mass destruction?
What about the good Australian value of compassion? We sure showed that with the Tampa and our immigration policy. What about a respect for democratic values? That is a good one for the government to adopt. If you are a minister in the Howard government you have to be charged by the AFP to be thrown out. This is a government without any ministerial standards and it abuses the democratic processes of this parliament day in and day out. Maybe a commitment to democratic values by the Prime Minister and members of the government ought to be the order of the day.
When the government comes to this debate in a serious manner and not seeking to manipulate the fears of Australians, we might have something to talk about. But, when the Prime Minister has non-core Australian values, he forfeits the right to occupy the position. A Prime Minister who involves himself in deceiving the Australian people time after time forfeits any high ground in the values debate in Australia. Let us get it very clear here. The values debate is not about migrants and inclusiveness in the Australian context; it is a base and bald manipulation by a government that is losing political ground, is arrogant and must rely yet again on manipulating the fears of the Australian people. The multicultural community of Geelong will not wear that in any way, shape or form. I am pleased in this debate today to oppose that element— (Time expired)
I am delighted to follow my friend and colleague the member for Corio. He is a passionate supporter, as am I, of multiculturalism in this country, believing like all on our side that it has been the great strengthening cement for the growth and diversity that this country has experienced. The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 replaces the 1948 Australian Citizenship Act. Whilst that act was the first to establish Australian citizenship, Australians retained their status as British subjects under that act. The reality is that, as a nation, we have grown significantly since the Second World War and we have had a massive contribution to that growth through immigration. With that, the concept of citizenship itself has had to evolve. Indeed, that original act has had 36 amendments to it, the most recent being in 2002. All of it has been developed in the spirit of bipartisanship, of not playing politics with the issues of immigration in this country. There was bipartisan recognition of the need to modernise the act to take account of the advances that had been made and the developments in the nation.
When Labor were in office we held an extensive inquiry under the chairmanship of another good friend, Senator Jim McKiernan. He and his committee made some very worthy recommendations—and they were shelved with the change of government in 1996. Now, 10 years on, this government finally has decided to do something, to pick up the task that we commenced over a decade ago. It has also drawn on the conclusions of the Australian Citizenship Council, but in all of that the government’s proposals were not tabled in the parliament until the 2005 bill, which we are debating. Why was that? It was not because the government had come to the view it needed to modernise—this was Labor’s position and it should have been a bipartisan position. The government came to that view because they felt they had to do something post the London bombings. This bill is not genuinely driven by a desire to modernise, to embrace or to update our experience as a nation with multiculturalism, to be proud of it, to promote it and to enhance it. It is not to build on the good qualities of tolerance and inclusiveness; the government wants to fire up, yet again, the urgency of the need to play on fear brought about through terrorist activities.
So here we have it, a government that wants to move on this issue and promote the values, if you can call them that, of fear and division rather than the values that we on this side of the House espouse of hope, opportunity, compassion and tolerance—the sorts of things that the member for Corio was talking about. It is these latter values that have to guide our approach to a comprehensive rewrite of this act. We on this side acknowledge the importance of doing other things if they are recommended to us, particularly in the wake of the London bombing. As important as that was in July of last year, I now ask the question: why are we not debating it until November the following year? Urgency, it seems, only matters when it is on the front page and fear is in people’s minds. Out of sight, it is also out of the government’s mind until some new spark, some new opportunity to drive the wedge, emerges again. I will come to that in a minute.
Also interesting to observe is that, post the London bombings, at the COAG meeting the premiers agreed to increase the time required to apply for citizenship from two to three years. This was picked up in the 2005 bill but not implemented until now. And now we have another amendment before us, without any consultation, to extend it by another year.
There is a lot in this bill with which we agree. Much of it we advocated, but there are key concerns. The government, as I said, is now amending the bill to increase the time required to apply for citizenship by another year. Labor vehemently opposes that extension. The original extension was based on consultation and agreement with the states and on intelligence briefings consequent on the London bombing. We accepted the process; we agreed on the outcome. No such consultations occurred in relation to the four-year requirement. We do not agree with it. Our second reading amendment opposes it. If the provision passes, Labor will reverse it on coming to power.
So why the change to four years? There has been no explanation by the government. It comes about because the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Robb, the member for Goldstein, conducted consultations and presented a discussion paper called ‘Australian citizenship: much more than a ceremony’. It went out in September this year. That discussion paper put out a number of proposals for consideration. One of them was the four-year extension—we acknowledge that. Another was the requirement for newly arrived migrants to pass a yet to be defined test, and another was the requirement to learn English.
These are controversial proposals, but of course they can be debated. We recognise the discussion paper putting them forward and we will engage in that debate because we have some very strong views. But why are we legislating for one of those proposals without the consultation that the government said would be accommodated by the release of the paper? It is unnecessary. It is provocative. That is the way this government acts. Labor, in office, will move to reverse this decision if the legislation passes.
Also presented in that discussion paper—it is not included here, but I want to make some comment about it—is the provocative requirement for people to speak English. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, provided resources are made available to do it. I make this point: I hope this is a provision that the government will not make retrospective because, if they do, there will be a lot of people who will not be able to remain in this country. The government would be sending a lot of people home today—people who have made real contributions to this nation.
Earlier the member for Kooyong spoke of his father’s experience as a person who never really mastered English, even though he thought he did, because he was too busy working hard to provide for his family and helping to build a new multicultural society. I am reminded that, when I first became the member for Hotham, the Nissan car plant in my electorate closed. That was a consequence of the Button car plan, when there was a massive rejigging of the industry away from total manufacture to component manufacture, and it saw the demise of one of the key manufacturers. At the time Labor had a program called the labour adjustment program that was designed for this restructuring. It was not there to pretend the restructuring would not happen but to recognise that people needed a hand up, that they needed help to make the transition.
The big problem at the Nissan plant was that we had 150 nationalities in the place. The trouble was a lot of them could not speak English. There was no point giving them the training programs because they could not speak the language or read the courses—and why? It was not because they had not made a contribution to the nation—many of them had worked in the plant in one form or another for decades. They had not been required to do so because all the company required of them was process working. We were maturing as an economy. Labor understood at the time the importance of committing resources, real resources, to help people make the transition, including the ability to speak the language.
English language training and people’s capacity to speak are important. It is just as important for the nation’s cohesion, for its growth, as it is for the individual’s opportunity. It is not enough to require proficiency in English; we must also provide the resources to enable people to learn the language. Labor understood that. It did much to provide assistance in settlement, in advocacy and in language training. But what do we have from the Howard government? It has cut back that assistance. On the one hand it is out there arguing that people should be required to learn the language and on the other, in the same year, it has cut another $10.8 million from the Adult Migrant English Program. What hypocrisy is that?
It is all very well to have the notion that people have to do things, but when they are not doing them and when they are not assisted to do them, they are not programs for inclusion—they are programs for exclusion. That is the point that this government has to come to grips with. It is not just English with which we have to help new arrivals; employment programs are another good case in point. The other day I received four DVDs from Minister Sharman Stone applauding achievements under the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, a scheme which Labor introduced. It is one of the most successful labour market programs ever developed anywhere in the world—a program that has a success rate in excess of 90 per cent, a program that was given significant impetus by us under the Working Nation program, which was cut back by this government.
But, more than that, when I was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, I understood the importance of tailoring aspects of that very successful program to meet the needs of migrant communities. Think about it: the types of migrants who came to this country had great entrepreneurial flair. What they did not have was the wherewithal, the ability and the resources to set themselves up in a business, to learn accounting procedures or many of the sorts of things that we take for granted. We tailored the NEIS program very specifically to recognise the support and assistance needed in migrant communities. It was a raging success and another initiative where Labor is prepared to not just talk about the need for people to get into business or learn the English language but also provide support mechanisms to help them do it.
The other important initiative was the support for the migrant resource centres—interestingly a program that a former member for Goldstein passionately supported. When Ian McPhee held that seat he continued the resourcing of the program. I should know as my father was appointed by him to chair the Prahran Migrant Resource Centre, a position he held for more than 20 years. Prahran is one of the most successful migrant resource centres in this country. That was an example of bipartisanship by an earlier member for Goldstein. I will be very interested to see, with the admonitions to new migrants that the new member for Goldstein would have them adhere to, whether he and the government are prepared to commit the same level of resources to help people take up the challenges that are being thrown out to them. Migrant resource centres are terribly important not just in their support for migrant communities but also for their advocacy and understanding—going out to bat for the special needs of newly-arrived migrants. They are an essential part of a settlement program, of an inclusion program, and of understanding the special needs, reaching out and committing the resources.
When I became the member for Hotham I made sure that we established such a body in the constituency—SEAAC, the Southern Ethnic Advisory and Advocacy Council. That still exists today and does a fantastic job in providing advocacy, assistance and support. More than that, though, it has been a magnet for the essential services in our community—the police, the fire, the ambulance—to work through these networks to respond to the particular needs of communities that are struggling, whether it is in terms of understanding or people going off the rails with drugs and crime. These are the sorts of things we have to commit resources to. We have seen significant examples of where that interface has been able to help and extend to developing young kids, particularly in sport. I am proud of that because I see it on the ground, but it will only happen if you resource these organisations. They have had their resources cut back because this government mouths the words of inclusion but does not practise the mechanisms for ensuring it.
I also make the point that I support the amendment in relation to the particular provision that has an impact on the Maltese in our community. There are some 300 in my electorate. I know the member for Gorton and the member for Prospect have larger proportions. Because of a quirk, there was a circumstance in which people who had to renounce their citizenship under section 18 at a particular time were, as a consequence of the way in which the law in Malta applied, deemed as having retained rights to Maltese citizenship, not having acquired them. I see that the government have made some moves in this direction. I hope that they are prepared to go the full extent. I think there have been some discussions going on. We have certainly proposed an amendment. I urge the government to get this right. There should be no group discriminated against. It is possible for this to be addressed.
I am convinced that immigration has unequivocally been good for this country—good for us economically, good for us socially, good for us culturally. It is a policy that enjoyed bipartisan support until Pauline Hanson—a circumstance that the Howard government condoned. Remember, I say this: of all the leaders of parties who have supported the bipartisanship, there is only one who did not, and he happens to be the Prime Minister today. He was the person who made the point that there were too many Asians in this country, and do you know what happened? The Liberal Party of that day took the Liberal leadership from him. That is what happened. Malcolm Fraser never would have done it. John Gorton would not have done it. You name any other Liberal leader—none of them played that card; only John Howard did. Australia has been a model of multiculturalism. We were able to hold our heads up proud as a nation of tolerance and inclusion. We all know the backlash that occurred with Hansonism and the government’s failed response in relation to it. Businesses were saying we were suffering because the things that we had been valued and respected for no longer existed.
But the Prime Minister does not just stop there. I almost drove the car into the one in front of me when I heard him a couple of Fridays ago reintroduce a word I have not heard for a long time—assimilation—and hold up the Greek community as one the great groups that had assimilated successfully into this country. This Prime Minister either does not get it or he is deliberately trying to impose his agenda. The Greeks that came here do not consider themselves as having assimilated—and I know they have not. I have many of them in my electorate. Certainly they have integrated, but they are proud of their culture, proud of their language, proud of their ancestry and proud of not only their ongoing contribution but their contribution to strengthening this nation. It is wrong, patronising and demeaning to say that they have become assimilated. They brought their language and their culture. They have adapted and they have been a significant contributor, like so many other groups in the community.
To draw people here, we have to go the extra yards to make sure that they are not only made to feel included but also helped to be included in our society. That is what this bill fails to do. We oppose the four-year extension but, more importantly, we will be looking at what the government intends to do in relation to the discussion paper. (Time expired)
I think the debate on our new citizenship laws is timely because it lets us reflect upon things that are of fundamental importance to us as a nation. I speak very frequently at citizenship ceremonies in my electorate and I do so because I think it is one of the most important moments in a new citizen’s life. It is the moment when they make a decision that they will become loyal to Australia above anything else and that they will take on the responsibility that goes with being a citizen, as well as taking the bounty of Australian policy that comes with it. I frequently say that we have invited people from all over the world to bring with them their culture, background and knowledge and it all goes into a big cauldron, a big melting pot, and what comes out is uniquely Australian. But there are some things that are just not welcome in the pot, and the first thing is anyone who does not believe in, subscribe to and uphold the fact that men and women in Australia are equal. That is not welcome in the pot. Anyone who comes and has a prejudice on the base of race or religion is not welcome in the pot.
In Australia we have, over a long period of time, come together and agreed on the rules and the laws that govern us and when we agree with those rules and those laws we feel free. When we talk about being free in this country, that is what we mean; we have agreed on these fundamental laws and rules, and in that society we feel free. It is possible for a slave to feel free if they agree with the rules and the laws that determine they shall be a slave. And so it is possible for people to say they will accept a lesser standard than we have here and claim that they have a freedom, but it is not the benchmark that we have set here in Australia. As I said, fundamental to that is an understanding of the equality of men and women in Australia and freedom from prejudice on the basis of race and religion.
I said that I attend citizenship ceremonies because I believe them to be important in the lives of those people who are taking up Australian citizenship. It is a great honour to take it up and that is the way, for the most part, they feel. It is an exciting moment and I always like it to be a ceremony where they can indeed feel that something special is taking place.
There was an awful moment at one stage when those people taking the oath and the affirmation were instructed by some bureaucrat down in the bowels of the earth that they could all mutter it together. What came out was a jangle of language which nobody understood and it took away from the importance of that ceremony. Fortunately, that foolish edict was withdrawn and now the oath and the affirmation are taken separately so that you can hear a person professing the statement that comes with the conferring of citizenship.
I suppose that, of the most debated issues relating to this bill, the first is that we are increasing the period that you need to be living in Australia legally to four years. That four-year period has been opposed by the opposition. Personally, I think the four years is an improvement. I think when you are dealing with something as important as citizenship it should have a decent length of time. When the Labor Party reduced it to two years it was done for political purposes, not good citizenship purposes. Many of us objected to it being done at the time. To raise the period firstly to three years and then to four is a good move.
The second point that has raised some discussion—adverse, from some—is the fact that there will be a prohibition on the minister approving applications from those assessed by ASIO to be direct or indirect risks to Australian security. This prohibition will apply whether or not citizenship is by descent, conferral or resumption. I also think that is a very wise provision in the circumstances. I do think that we have to be particular about who it is we offer citizenship to, that they are the sorts of people who will truly make good Australians.
The citizenship bill also introduces provisions to revoke citizenship acquired as a result of third-party fraud and strengthens the revocation provisions relating to serious criminal offences. This is also important in giving proper backup to our concept of what citizenship means. Again I go back to my citizenship ceremonies and what I might say there. One of the things that I do is to encourage people who become citizens to take up an activity of a voluntary nature, which again is very much the mark of what makes an Australian citizen. Indeed, in this country, we could not function to the degree we do without volunteers, whether they be volunteers in surf-lifesaving, in the rural fire service or the SES, in Boy Scouts, or Girl Guides or service clubs. Whatever the range, there is someone somewhere who can fit in and can in fact add to what the Australian community enjoys, and in turn they will become part of that community and become known in the community. I have often said that I think that voluntary activity is the mortar between the bricks that build the edifice of our nation, and so I do encourage all who become new citizens to join and partake of the activities in the community they have chosen to reside in, to become a part of the Australian citizenship body.
The new citizenship act sets out that someone who is applying for citizenship by conferral should be over the age of 18 at the time of applying, should be a permanent resident at the time of application, should understand the nature of the application—and that, too, is a very significant point: that they understand that they are indeed swearing allegiance to this country—should possess a basic knowledge of English, should have adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship, should be likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia or otherwise maintain a close and continuing association with Australia and should be of good character at the time of the minister’s decision to grant the application. Those are serious points which need to be highlighted. They are the sorts of points that should be the essence of making a decision as to whether or not a person is suitable to become a citizen of this country.
I cannot not comment on the comments of Sheikh al-Hilali when we are talking about the concept of citizenship. There is a person who ought never have been allowed permanent residency, let alone citizenship, in this country. This man was allowed to remain here because it was politically expedient at the time. I think one of the most offensive parts of the speech he made at the close of Ramadan was where he said that the rape would never have taken place if the girl remained alone in her room with her headscarf on—in other words, a prisoner, not free. He said that she had the vice of enticement. Therefore, if she is locked up she cannot entice a man, who must be at all times free. They are concepts of freedom which are totally against what this country stands for.
Men and women are equal. That means women are able to pursue the ability that they have, to disport themselves in accordance with the laws that we have and to not be treated like they are slipping into slavery. There may be some who wish to go on the slippery slide to slavery. We have to be vigilant and we have to protect the rights of those who are seen to be oppressed. I want to put this very strongly: to live in a community where that dictum is being taught, presumably to young men who adhere to the following of that sheikh, is something that is not acceptable in our nation.
When we consider what action needs to be taken, what reaction is required, we have to look at the sort of ideology that is being preached—and I make a distinction between that ideology and religion observance. It is an ideology, just as communism was an ideology or Nazism was an ideology. It is about the oppression of people. There were people under the Nazi system who may have felt free because they agreed with what Hitler was saying, yet it was abhorrent and we went to war to stop it. Yet here is a man in our midst preaching hate and preaching that women are to be oppressed. He is in hospital now. He will be being looked after by nurses—female nurses. Under his version of things, if they look him in the eye that is an unacceptable offence and consequences will flow. That is not acceptable in my country.
As we consider this citizenship bill, we have to do so not only in light of how many years people have to be here and whether they are of good character but also in light of what it means fundamentally to be Australian. And what it does mean is that men and women are equal and that we are free of prejudice on the basis of race and religion. It means that we create a society where people can reach their maximum potential and where the individual is considered an important person in their own right—not part of a collective where decisions are taken for the collective and the individual can be sacrificed to those collective decisions.
This is a critical time in the development of Australia. We have invited people here in good faith and asked them to be part of us. But we cannot allow that to be a subversive influence; one that will say that in Australia we have some citizens who are lesser than others because there is a dictum being preached by a man who has control over his own community and whose followers suffer. We have to make sure that the rules that we have agreed on that make us feel free remain the dominant rules and laws irrespective of how they are challenged or attacked. That is our responsibility and it is our responsibility as members in this parliament.
The only reason that I as a woman can stand in this parliament today representing my electorate—and having been a minister of the Crown—is due to my forebears, my father and generations before him, who fought for this country and gave me the gift of freedom. It is an obligation we should protect on a daily basis to ensure that the next generation has at least as good a gift as I had—any less and we have all failed. We have a great job to do to ensure that that gift goes to the next generation and the one after that.
The implied reason the government has given for the extension on the qualification period for citizenship from three years to four years is ‘national security’. I take national security issues seriously and I am sure you do too, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Hatton, and I am sure most people on our side do as well. The reason I put national security in inverted commas in this context is that it is the government that is not taking national security seriously. In fact, the sequence of events relating to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 is clear evidence that the government is playing politics with the very important institution of Australian citizenship and it is using national security as the tool in this game.
The cynical abuse of the fundamental institutions of this nation is typical of the record of this government. This government has never been shy about abusing national institutions or groups of people in society for very base political reasons. We all remember the election climate of 2001: the lies, the asylum seekers who threw their children into the sea and the released doctored photographs in the final days of the campaign—all lies. That these stories were complete fabrications is now a matter of public record. This shows how this government is prepared to demonise groups of people for its own cynical political purposes, and we all know there are numerous other examples. The bells are also ringing in this case.
The government gave national security as a reason for extending the qualification period for citizenship from two to three years in the original bill, which was prepared 12 months ago. The opposition accepted in good faith this extension and the reasons the government gave for it. The opposition had to accept that the government was telling the truth. The government refused to provide the information and the opposition had no other way of verifying it. So, when the government intimated it had information critical to national security that necessitated the extension of the qualifying period, the opposition was in no position whatsoever to reject or argue that claim and, because we were not prepared to put the safety and security of Australians at risk, we had little choice but to say we would go along with the legislation.
This is an example of where the proper operation of the parliamentary system of government relies on the integrity of the government of the day. Although the government’s integrity in such matters has been ripped to shreds over the ‘children overboard’ affair, the opposition had no information contrary to that provided by the government. Thus the opposition agreed to the government’s original extension. That was the situation a year ago. If we had doubts then—and we did—we ought to have very serious doubts now.
If there were serious issues of national security at stake and if Australians were exposed to risk while the two-year rule applied then why has the government let the legislation lie on the shelf for the past year? In that year probably 120,000 immigrants have become new citizens, and about the same number have entered the country and begun their qualifying period of two years. If there were critical national security concerns, as the government claimed, why has it allowed another 120,000 people into the country under the old two-year qualification rule?
For many of us the question answers itself. The so-called national security issues the government nominated were a fabrication. The only alternative explanation is that the government is incompetent and sloppy on the critical issue of national security. That is probably true too. Both reasons are possible, but I judge the first reason as the more likely simply because of the government’s long record of cynical abuse of national institutions for its own political purposes.
The likely scenario is that the government judged that the opposition would oppose the increase from two years to three years. It would then put the legislation aside to use in another divisive election campaign in 2007. When the opposition took the government at its word, the legislation was shelved for a year and brought back in a new form. The new form extends the qualifying period from two to four years. It is clear that the government are prepared to cast most people who seek to enter this country as being of evil character—until they can prove otherwise. That seems to be their attitude—at least for their own crass political purposes.
My view is that the overwhelming numbers of people who seek to come to this country are good people who intend to make a positive contribution to our society and our nation, and who do that. I participate—probably like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and most members here—in almost every citizenship ceremony in my electorate of Port Adelaide. It is one of the most rewarding functions. Different councils have different emphasis, but they are joyous occasions. It is a very happy time. Friends, families, kids, national costumes—it is a terrific thing. It is a time of optimism. Pride marks the culmination of the process of immigration settlement and citizenship.
My electorate has a very large number of immigrants and new citizens. The Vietnamese community, for example, has a significant presence. I have made some very good friends in that community. They have made an enormous contribution to my area and to the nation generally. Not least of all, as you can see by my girth, is the contribution made by the Vietnam Restaurant, judged recently as the best Vietnamese restaurant in the country. In fact, it is the best Asian restaurant in the country.
My wife, Aldona, is also an immigrant, coming to this country with her parents at a young age. Her parents were Lithuanian, caught by the Russians, caught by the Germans, then again caught by the Russians, caught by the Germans. They finished up in Czechoslovakia, then up in Meppen and then in Genoa, like millions of other refugees in war-torn Europe. They could have gone to Canada, but the next boat went to Australia. That was good enough; they were out of there. With a suitcase and two little kids they got on the boat and came here. They had no English, no possessions and no money. Like a lot of immigrants at that time, they were grateful to come to a country which has been able to provide such opportunities for them and their children and to which they have been able to make their own contributions.
Of course, apart from the Indigenous people, we are all immigrants. From the first days of European settlement, new immigrants to South Australia first stepped ashore at Port Adelaide. Where else? The clever ones never ventured much further. My family has lived there for 170 years. It is a long time.
Citizenship, as we say at the ceremonies, is the common bond that unites us all in a mutual commitment to Australia, regardless of our birthplace, ethnic background or religious affiliation. By international standards our citizenship system is welcoming to newcomers. We have a shorter than average qualifying period of permanent residence; that is true. We do not have a strenuous language test. That is true too. This reflects a deliberate choice of adopting an inclusive approach that can act as the unifying force in an increasingly diverse population. You can treat people as being of light and goodness and you can treat people as being of dark and evil. I think the goodness and light is the attitude that we have used since the end of World War II, and it is one that we ought to continue.
Australia has conducted an enormously successful high-intake immigration program over the past half-century. I think we have the highest per capita rate in the world. More than 3.2 million immigrants have gone on to become citizens, contributing to the building of the nation of which we are all proud. It is an immigration and citizenship program that has enjoyed bipartisan support, at least until recently. Remarkably for such a huge immigration program, there have been few failures: a few Nazis after the war, a few hiccups with Malcolm Fraser and some people from the Middle East in the seventies and early eighties. But overall, it has been overwhelmingly successful.
The only other concern with the system is the take-up of citizenship, which, at around 75 per cent, is lower than I think all of us would hope for. There are about 950,000 eligible noncitizens who have not taken up citizenship in this country, despite meeting the residential requirements, including 350,000 people born in the United Kingdom and 200,000 born in New Zealand. Somehow I think that figure is about 500,000 really. New Zealanders seem to be here in great droves. It is in the national interest that every resident eligible for citizenship becomes a citizen. Every effort must be made to increase the take-up rate. I do not think that the government’s new legislation, however, will assist in any way—in fact, it will only hinder that.
It is an interesting quirk of history that the legal status of Australian citizenship is around just half the age of the nation itself. Australia became a nation in 1901. It is one of the longest continuing democracies in the world, of which we all should be proud. It was not until 1949, on Australia Day, that the federal Australian Citizenship Act, which was introduced in 1948 by Ben Chifley, the Prime Minister of the day, came to fruition. In fact, Ben became the first Australian citizen at that ceremony here in Canberra.
Prior to the act, most residents were, legally speaking, British subjects. I can tell you that when my family fought at Fromelles and Pozieres in World War I and at Tobruk and on the Kokoda Trail in World War II they did not regard themselves as English or British; they were Australian. They were Australian from the time the eldest child was born in this country, in the 1850s. But legally we were British subjects.
It is interesting, that first Australian citizenship ceremony. After Ben Chifley, the next seven people to be granted Australian citizenship were born in seven different countries. They were all men—you would not get away with that today: Angel Maguira, from Spain; Jan Jandura Pucek, from Czechoslovakia; Paul Marvig, from Denmark; Thiel Marstrand, from Norway; Michalos Mavrokefalos, from Greece; Auguste Duran, from France; and Mladen Bumbak, from Yugoslavia. Right from the very beginning, this prime event was designed to emphasise and signify the multicultural and multiethnic character of Australian citizenship—right from the very beginning. People think this word ‘multiculturalism’ is some sort of touchy-feely, pretty word of the last 20 years. No, it is not. It was implicit in that first ceremony. The act decreed that most people born in Australia prior to that day automatically became Australian citizens. That was me. Unfortunately, Australia’s Indigenous people had to wait another 18 years before they were legally entitled to become citizens, to our great shame.
As I said, since 1949 more than 3.2 million people have taken the step to become an Australian citizen, helping Australia to become one of the most culturally diverse nations on earth. That diversity is one of the defining characteristics of our society. It is something to celebrate, to take pride in. It is a strength, not a weakness.
Our immigration program has been lauded as one of the most successful immigration and settlement programs in the world. Why are we running away from that? Are we ashamed of what we have done? What we do not need is a government that is prepared to sacrifice such a successful national program for cynical political purposes. Unfortunately, that is what is evidenced by the government’s latest version of the legislation that has been brought into the parliament.
As I said earlier, it is my view that the government increased the qualification period from two to three years in its original legislation for cynical political purposes. It thought that the opposition would argue that the system has worked very well for half a century—like I am arguing now—and that there is no need for such a change. The government probably also thought we would argue that the increase in the qualifying period for citizenship could hardly have any bearing on national security issues. After all, there are stringent tests to be passed in order to win a residency visa in the first place, and presumably this process would weed out any unsatisfactory potential residents—and, if not, why not? It is a fair question to pose to those who query this argument. Secondly, it really stretches plausibility that the authorities can find out in three years that a person is an unsatisfactory potential citizen but they cannot find out in two.
The government’s arguments for change were shallow and barely believable and led to serious doubts about their veracity and sincerity. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, the opposition agreed to the change because the government argued they had ‘national security’ reasons that compelled this change. Look, we are aware that the circumstances of security in the world have changed, but that is not the reason. Personally I could not see the justification for the change to the citizenship qualifying period. I cannot see that, but of course I accepted the position decided by my party. My doubts about the sincerity of the government’s position have been confirmed by the failure of the government to put this legislation, said to be of critical importance to national security, before the House during the last year, and any lingering doubts have been entirely blown away by the form in which this legislation has come back into the parliament.
The government now proposes that the qualifying period be increased not from two to three years but from two to four years. That the government intended to use the original legislation, when rejected by the opposition, for cynical political purposes in the next election campaign is now without doubt. That is the only possible explanation for the revised legislation. There are a few other things hidden in there, but that is the only real reason. But, unfortunately for the Prime Minister and this government, the opposition will not be drawn into this cynical political game. We will support this legislation, not because we agree with it but because we value the national institution of citizenship so highly that we will not see it abused for crass political purposes. We will not allow the next election campaign to become a rerun of the disgraceful, cynical campaign of 2001. Labor are committed to Australia being an unified nation, not a divided nation. We value our new citizens and the contribution that they have made to this nation, and we will not allow them to be vilified by the government for their own electoral ends.
This latest version of the bill is nothing other than another attempt to play politics with the very important Australian institution of citizenship. I condemn this legislation, but I also accept that I will have to support it, probably for the good of the nation, so that citizenship is not trashed, because, if the legislation is defeated—and it will not be—there is no doubt in my mind that the government will drag the good name of new citizens through the mud in the next election campaign for its own political purposes.
This government is in trouble. It is not in trouble because of citizenship, skills, education, health or climate change; it is in trouble because it has buggered up the economy. That is the real reason. It has had these huge surpluses and it has given them away instead of spending them on infrastructure, education, training or research—on trying to raise the bar at which this country operates—and now it has a problem. Interest rates are out of control. Inflation is nearly four per cent. They are the determinants, as they always were, that have this government in huge trouble. Yes, there are other reasons why elections are won and lost, and we saw that, unfortunately, in Madrid in Spain not so long ago and we have seen it in Israel twice. But, generally, it is the economy that dictates whether governments win or lose.
What is so sad about this citizenship bill is that, as the previous member on our side, Simon Crean, said, we have had bipartisanship on this program for over 50 years. I do remember Ian MacPhee, the former member for Goldstein. He was a very good friend of my predecessor, Mick Young, and I was very proud to be in their company on a number of occasions. Their friendship was quite remarkable, but it was a very close friendship. When they spoke about this country, from very different backgrounds, they spoke of it as a nation of coherence, of togetherness, of being proud, of being inclusive and of seeing the goodness and uniqueness of people from all over the world—not seeing evil. Of course we have some evil people who sneak through the system, but they should not be the determining factor of this citizenship program, which, in my view, is the most successful in the world.
I am not afraid of a debate about improving it. In some ways in this country we walk away from debates within political parties and within this parliament. We seem to be afraid of debate. I am not afraid of debate, but I do not want to see this program trashed. This government is well on the way to doing that, and that is to our eternal shame.
Isaiah Bowman, who was an American geographer, said:
Citizenship comes first today in our crowded world. ... No man—
I am sure he meant no person, but he said ‘no man’—
can enjoy the privileges of education and thereafter with a clear conscience break his contract with society. To respect that contract is to be mature, to strengthen it is to be a good citizen, to do more than your share under it is noble.
He was right in placing citizenship at the centre of our responsibilities to one another as a nation.
Our views of citizenship have changed significantly over time. Many people think of the Athenian democracy as the world’s first democracy, and its greatest. We have many proud Greeks in our parliament and in our community who take a lot of pride in Athenian democracy. But the Athenian democracy, of course, did not give the vote to women or slaves. Their idea of a citizen was, of course, different from our idea of a citizen. Of course, our ideas about citizenship and about the responsibility of citizenship and the rights of citizens change over time. That is as it should be. Ideally, they change for the better.
The member for Port Adelaide reminded us that it took 17 years after the first Australian citizenship ceremony for Indigenous Australians to be recognised and counted as Australian citizens. It is shameful that it took as long as it did, but what a positive thing it was when that referendum was held and Australians so overwhelmingly supported and acknowledged the importance of Aboriginal Australians being counted and classed as full citizens—another positive change when it comes to citizenship. What we want to do with Australian citizenship is continue to improve its strength and continue to improve it as an institution—not weaken it and traduce it, as this legislation in part does.
The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 makes a number of changes that I am very concerned about and it foreshadows other changes that I am also concerned about. As usual, with this sort of nasty legislation it is like giving the worm pill to the dog, isn’t it? You wrap it in bacon to get the dog to swallow it. This citizenship bill has positive measures that Labor is conscience bound to support, like the positive measure of returning citizenship to people who themselves or whose parents have given up Australian citizenship in the past. That is most particularly important for members of the Maltese community who have made a very strong and convincing argument that some of these changes are necessary and are an improvement. In amongst it are all the nasty little surprises, like the proposal to extend the waiting period for citizenship from two to three years and the government’s suggestion subsequently that that should even be increased to four years. Some of them are even talking about five years.
Surely, if we have the proper checks on people before they come to Australia as permanent residents, extending the period for which they must wait for Australian citizenship makes us no more secure as a nation. Excluding people from citizenship or delaying when they take up the responsibilities of citizenship makes us no more secure as a nation. It is obvious that, in a period where the terrorist threat around the world is something that governments should and must take seriously, we would look for ways to strengthen our security. But no single person has yet explained to me how making people who have been checked before they come to Australia wait for three rather than two years makes us safer from terrorism. The people who flew aeroplanes into the twin towers on 11 September 2001 could have been in the United States for a week, a month or a year and it would not have made any difference. Many of the people who exploded bombs so tragically on the London Underground were born in the UK—they were British citizens. Our response to the threat of terrorism cannot be this knee-jerk exclusion that makes people feel less Australian and less committed to our body politic. It does not increase our security at all.
There has also been this sort of hint, although it does not appear in this legislation, that we are going to do something about an English language test. It is very important for people to learn to speak English when they live in Australia. The very best way of doing this is to offer them as much teaching and training as possible. Everyone knows that the government has actually cut resources to the Adult Migrant Education Program by $10.8 million and many of the courses do not meet the requirements of new migrants and in particular refugees.
When you look at the people who are most likely to have difficulties learning English, they are people who do not have literacy and numeracy skills because they have come from places that are in crisis—war-torn countries—and they have had to leave school much earlier than they should have or would have liked to, if indeed they have been able to go to school at all. The other people who are slowest learning English are women raising their families, who migrated here as part of a family unit and have young children at home. I think it is so incredibly offensive that we say to these women that, because it slows them in learning English and they are not interacting every day in the workplace, the work that they are doing at home raising their very young children is less important than the work that their husbands are doing while learning English in the workplace.
The reason I feel so strongly about this is that this is exactly the situation that my mother was in after she migrated to Australia. My father learned English much more quickly than my mother did because he was at work every day interacting in English. The first job my mother had was in a factory where nobody else spoke English either; they were all postwar migrants. I find absolutely deeply offensive the idea that we would value lower than my father’s work the work that my mother was doing in raising the three of us children—putting all of her time, all of her energy and all of her effort into it, giving up her opportunity for independence and her opportunity to learn English as quickly as my father. My mother spoke to us in Slovenian and that means I am bilingual and so are my brothers; in fact, two of us speak three languages, but that is another issue. Has the fact that we learnt Slovene as our first language, our mother tongue, disadvantaged me in any way in my life? I would say in every respect that it is an advantage and I have my mother to thank for it. We have this talk of how we are going to start putting English language tests on people before they can become Australian citizens. The idea that my father would pass an English language test and my mother would not because she was at home raising a family means we need to look at these proposals very closely.
It amazes me. I remember growing up and my parents saying to me: ‘It was terrible when we first came here. We’d be sitting quietly talking to each other in Slovene on the train and someone would walk up to us and say, “You should be speaking English when you’re here.”’ This is when they were talking to each other quietly on the train. God forbid that we should ever return to an environment where we start to speak to each other in this way. It is important for people to be able to communicate in English. The way that they learn to communicate in English is not just through adult education classes. It is by speaking to their next-door neighbours. It is by feeling welcomed in the school community. The way my mother learnt to speak English was by speaking to Mrs Watts next door and Doris Jones down the street and Mrs Fletcher around the corner, who used to come and have a cup of tea with her and help out with her very young children because she had no relatives in Australia. That is how people learn English—by being included in the English-speaking community, not by being excluded and traduced in this way.
What is this citizenship test going to include? The United Kingdom has a citizenship test and it has been fascinating to look at the details. About one-third of people are failing this test because it asks questions like: what are quangos and non-departmental public bodies? Rhetorically, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you would like to have that question asked of you. Another question is: what is proportional representation and where is it used? Another question is: how are judges appointed? I think even the people who make the appointments find that a little bit of a mystery. Another is: how many young people are there in the United Kingdom?
That is one level of extreme, where the questions are very difficult to answer for most people—for most people born in that United Kingdom, I would say. The other end is the United States, which has a test that includes questions like: ‘What are the colours of the American flag?’ What is the point of that test? I think probably the best test is the one I found on the email. It is obviously a draft. It says it comes from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I have not seen a final copy; I assume it must be a draft. It asks questions such as:
How many slabs can you fit in the back of a Falcon Ute while also allowing room for your cattle dog?
When packing an Esky do you put the ice, or the beer, in first?
I like this one:
Does “yeah-nah” mean
a) “Yes and no”
b) “Maybe”
c) “Yes I understand but No I don’t agree”?
There are some fantastic questions:
Which Australian Prime Minister held the world record for drinking a yardie full of beer the fastest?
That is a very important one to know, I think. It goes on:
On which Ashes tour did Warney’s hair look the best?
a) 1993
b) 1997
c) 2001
d) 2005
And:
Did you cry when Molly died on a Country Practice?
We all know it would have been un-Australian not to have cried when Molly died. It goes on:
When you were young did you prefer the Hills Hoist over any swing set?
There is another obvious answer. I guess we will reserve judgement until we see what this test is but, as for the idea that we are going to get anything sensible out of this government, many of us remember the preamble to the Constitution, which was perhaps the most poorly written piece of bilge water I have ever seen. But we are yet to see what we will get in the citizenship test.
The Australian citizenship pledge, on the other hand, something that is said at every citizenship ceremony that we go to and that I am proud to repeat again on Australia Day every year to recommit to Australian citizenship, says:
From this time forward, under God—
you can say ‘under God’ if you wish—
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
Whose democratic beliefs I share,
Whose rights and liberties I respect,
And whose laws I will uphold and obey.
It tears me up every single time to see a room full of people who choose to be Australian, who have come here because they want to contribute to our community and to our nation. To hear these people repeating these words moves me every single time. When I say to them in my citizenship speech that people will tell them that they are very lucky to have become Australian citizens—and that is true—I also say to them, ‘But we are lucky to have you,’ because these people choose to come here and commit to becoming Australian citizens, and their greatest desire is to fit into our community, to work hard and to raise their families in an environment that is peaceful and safe. They say those words and they make that commitment. Why do they need to say more than that? Doesn’t that cover it?
You wonder: if we had taken this approach to citizenship over the years, who would we have missed out on coming to this country? There was a terrific piece in the Melbourne Age a couple of months ago by Dan Silkstone and Ebony Piera that went through the sort of people who arrived in Australia not speaking English. Sir Gustav Nossal arrived in Australia in 1939. The authors say:
… he did not speak a word of English. Neither did his parents. Now he is one of the country’s most decorated scientists.
The Nossals became Australian citizens two years after arriving. But they would have found it difficult to achieve citizenship under the proposed requirements, says their celebrated son.
The authors go on to quote Sir Gustav:
“My parents’ English was very poor. They became citizens quite quickly but it would have been very borderline for them if they’d had an English language test.”
The authors say:
He opposes any tests, saying it would be impossible to make it fair and non-discriminatory.
Sir Gustav is quoted again:
The migrant experience in this country has been an extraordinary success …
It is a Melbourne newspaper, so of course they also talk about Lord Mayor John So, who came to Australia from Hong Kong as a 17-year-old student and who, I believe, still has a fairly colourful way of speaking English. John So may well have missed out. He says:
Over time, migrants will develop the communication skills required to assimilate. For some people that will take a short time; for others it will be longer. But the time frame is not important.
The point he is making is that these people make a contribution to Australia. Another example is recycling billionaire Richard Pratt, who, the authors say, came to Australia from Poland as a reffo in 1939. He did not know anything about his new home when he was coming here. His parents did not know much else other than they needed a safe place to go. He is quoted as saying:
It goes to the core of who I am … I am an Australian, an immigrant, and the son of immigrants.
Businessman Sir Arvi Parbo is another one. He migrated from Estonia in 1949. He, too, knew little about Australia but went on to lead companies such as BHP and Western Mining. Professor Mary Kalantzis arrived from Greece when she was a child. Her parents spoke little English. She says:
Never could they have passed a citizenship test. They were poor, illiterate peasants from Greece. They could not even have passed a test in Greek!
Their daughter, the authors go on to say, was recently appointed Dean of Education at the University of Illinois in the US.
Who would we have missed out on with the proposals that this government has for Australian citizenship and what is the purpose of raising these issues now? Is it really to improve the security of Australians at a time of international uncertainty? How exactly does it do that? How exactly does making people wait longer to become citizens, excluding them from the community and encouraging hostility against them, actually make us more secure in the world? Frankly, terrorists could fly in tomorrow and in a week’s time be able to launch a fairly successful attack on a major Australian institution. We do our best to make sure that does not happen, we need to take all possible measures to make sure it does not happen, but I genuinely do not understand how any of these measures actually improve that.
With this government saying constantly that citizenship is so important, so valuable and so precious, it is funny that two weeks ago, in the second week of October, neither Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, nor the state opposition leader, Peter Debnam, could be bothered turning up to the 27 September ceremony in their electorates. The person asked to give the speech about what it is like to be an Australian citizen was none other than the US Consul-General, Steve Smith. As Joe Hildebrand said, reporting in the Telegraph, ‘He is a lovely bloke but about as Australian as the Statue of Liberty.’
As I say, the bill is like the worm tablet—it has been wrapped in bacon and we will swallow it. It does have some good and important measures in it, particularly, as I say, for Maltese citizens, but we as a community really need to ask ourselves what it is that we fear and how we can include people and encourage citizenship rather than discourage it.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005, but before I go to the detail of the bill I would like to highlight the incredible impact that migrants have had in Australia and in particular in my electorate. In doing so I would like to associate myself very strongly with the comments that were included in many of my colleagues’ contributions to this debate, in particular those of the member for Port Adelaide. He said a great deal of what I believe and think about this bill and I want to congratulate him for what I think was an excellent presentation on many aspects of the legislation.
Unfortunately, a lot of people who do not know Canberra all that well believe that this is the home only of politicians—for some part of the year—and public servants, with little regard to the multicultural side of our community. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The data that I want to refer to is from the 2001 census. Obviously the numbers have changed a bit since then, but in 2001 the census showed that over 38,000 people in my electorate alone were born overseas. This included, at the time, over 1,200 from Germany, over 1,000 from Italy, over 700 from Malaysia and over 400 from Greece. In 2001 there were also over 40,000 people in my electorate whose parents were both born overseas, compared with over 83,000 people whose parents were both born in Australia. This data demonstrates that Canberra is certainly an incredibly multicultural place.
I, like many of my colleagues, have the opportunity to attend many events in my community that are conducted and held by ethnic communities. Last Sunday, for instance, I had the pleasure of laying a wreath on behalf of my community at the Greek memorial up near the Australian War Memorial in commemoration of Oxi Day, or ‘No’ Day.
It is pronounced ‘Ochi Day’
Thank you very much, Mr Georgiou. That is a perfect example of how you can value language from other countries. I also recently attended the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Hungarian Revolution, and I have to say that when I went to that particular function, the organisers were overwhelmed by the number of people who attended. In fact, they were wheeling in piles of chairs to handle the numbers and they were thrilled that so many people had turned up to the event in Civic here in Canberra. Last Saturday evening I had the pleasure of attending the wedding celebration of a Muslim family in my electorate. There were 600 people there. It was a fantastically joyous occasion and something that was a first for me. It was an evening that I enjoyed incredibly.
I also go every year to the annual celebration for the Mon people, an ethnic grouping from Burma. I have a very close relationship with the Thai and Laos communities here—and I am just naming a few. There are so many here in our town of Canberra. Given the size and the geography of this community, it is very easy to get around and get to know them all. It is not unusual to now also see new arrivals from the Sudan at the local shopping centre. I am seeing that more and more, and I am very pleased to see that they are able to choose my community as their community. It is always a great pleasure to share in the rich culture of ethnic communities. It is also a great pleasure to see these communities display their great love and loyalty to their new home, which has given them a chance to improve their life circumstances. They have offered so much to us by them coming here.
I enjoy going to the functions organised by ethnic communities and being Italian or Maltese for the day. Part of this is being immersed in their language and their culture. Some of our most loyal and hardworking migrants have not had the opportunity to learn English and, whilst this may not be ideal, it has not detracted at all from their contribution to this country. As other speakers have said, I also take every opportunity I can, when invited, to go to the citizenship ceremonies and to speak to them. On those occasions I always make a point of thanking them for choosing this country and this city—this community—as their home. I always impress upon them to please never lose their language or their culture, because while they maintain that, it adds so much to the dimension of our communities here.
The other thing I want to mention in passing is that we have the National Multicultural Festival every year in Canberra. It gets bigger and more representative, with many thousands of people attending. And—given the odd little blip we have seen in Cronulla and elsewhere—I would like to offer, without being superior about it, that it seems to me that the way the communities mix and live together within Canberra and the rest of the Australian Capital Territory is a great lesson in how you can settle communities from other backgrounds very successfully. I am very pleased to see that we have that down to a tee, I believe, in our community of Canberra.
I have great respect for the migrants who have come here. Our postwar migration program has been extremely successful, and I believe that the success is due to the fact that we accepted those migrants in good faith and we treated them with great respect. Unfortunately, I am not of the view that some of the actions of the current government are in that same spirit. These bills were first proposed following the London bombings in 2005. Some of the provisions are very welcome; others are not so welcome and raise deep concerns for both myself and my colleagues. One of the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Bill when it was first introduced was to increase the time qualification for citizenship from two years to three years. This was recommended by COAG following consideration of the best available intelligence. In that context, we on the Labor side agreed to support that change to three years. We agreed that there could be some merit in that change, although some people had reservations about it, as the member for Port Adelaide said earlier.
However, the government then sat on this bill for a year and only introduced it this week, almost one year later. It was revealed in Senate estimates earlier this week that, during that year, 117,208 people had been processed for citizenship using the old system. If it is so vital for us to increase the delay for citizenship for the security of our community and our country, why has the government sat on this for a year and allowed 117,208 people to pass successfully through the citizenship program? Now the government has introduced an amendment to the bill which will increase that change from two years to four years. I ask: on what basis has the government decided to increase this time qualification? The federal government has given no justification whatsoever for the increase. It does not make sense and it only serves to make it more difficult for people who want to become Australian citizens.
We desperately need skilled migrants to Australia to address our workforce shortage. The increase in the delay for citizenship may turn some people off coming because they have to wait longer to become a citizen. But, more importantly, it throws a blanket of suspicion over their motives for coming here. That is the issue that concerns me the most and that is why I cannot support this provision. It is not in the spirit of Australia’s extremely successful postwar migration program; it is not in the spirit of the way our citizenship program has run in the past.
Another provision in this legislation is that a citizenship application of an applicant who is considered to be a security risk by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, can be refused. Again, while the claimed basis for the changes is security reasons, because of the one-year delay in introducing these bills we have had 117,208 people processed in the last year without ASIO necessarily having the power that this bill will give them. Even if they are known to be a security risk, one could ask—and it is a question that must be answered—where is the evidence that these changes are useful for security? The previous speaker, the member for Sydney, mentioned the tragic bombings in London. But the perpetrators of that shocking crime were not even migrants or new ethnic arrivals but British citizens, some of them born in the country. I do not understand the logic of arguing that these changes are necessary for security reasons when there is sadly no guarantee whatsoever, in the world in which we find ourselves today, of where such offenders will come from.
I would also like to comment on the provision in the bill that would prevent the minister from approving a person becoming an Australian citizen if the person has been convicted of an offence against an Australian or foreign law for which the person has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least five years. I do not believe there should be a blanket rule about people who have been convicted and sentenced for at least five years under a foreign law. Unfortunately, many people around the world are unfairly convicted and imprisoned. We cannot assume that all countries around the world have fair and just legal systems. But, more importantly, what about political prisoners or those who have come to Australia from places such as Burma, the Sudan and a range of countries? Just think of Nelson Mandela, who was in jail for 20 years. Would we reject him on the basis that he was in a prison for longer than five years? He would not be welcomed, on my reading of the bill—and I stand to be corrected. If I have got this wrong, I would be very happy to hear it. This legislation would mean that a person like Nelson Mandela could not come here. We would reject him.
I lived in Burma some years ago; I served there with our foreign mission. I think of the people who have bravely stood up to the shocking, ruling military regime in that country. I think of Mugabe’s regime. I think of any number of people around the world. What this bill is saying is: ‘If you have fallen foul of those corrupt regimes, tough, but we don’t want you.’ It is the most incredible question that really deserves a better answer than I think we have been getting so far, if any, from the government.
On a positive note, there are some provisions that we do support. The bill facilitates dual citizenship and will allow many people to resume or take up Australian citizenship, which they were unable to do prior to this legislation. This will benefit Australian citizens who have adopted children from overseas, people with a Papua New Guinean background and the Maltese community. People of Maltese origin who renounced their Australian citizenship under section 18 of the Citizenship Act of 1948 have not been able to resume citizenship under section 23AA of the Citizenship Act. They were deemed to have retained their rights to Maltese citizenship rather than having acquired foreign citizenship. In March 2005, the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee stated that Australian citizenship should be more inclusive and children of people who renounce their citizenship under section 18 should also be eligible for Australian citizenship. And I am pleased to say that at the last ALP national conference we passed the following resolution:
Labor will streamline the citizenship resumption arrangements for those who lost citizenship as a result of previous provisions regarding dual citizenship in Australian and Maltese law.
I am sure this will be good news to the 200 or so people in my electorate who were born in Malta. I know that they will be very happy with this change.
The government has released a discussion paper on a number of issues relating to citizenship. One of the key issues is whether Australia should introduce a formal citizenship test, and it raises some very interesting questions. For example: what level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen, and how important is a commitment to Australia’s way of life and values for prospective Australian citizens? While I think these are valid questions and it is important to debate these issues—I do not shy away from that and I am never frightened to have a debate about these sorts of issues—my major concern is the context in which the government has raised these issues. Why is it that the government is only now highlighting the importance of English skills for Australian citizens? Whilst anyone with commonsense would agree that it is ideal for Australian citizens to speak English, there are many first-generation Australian citizens who came to Australia as migrants, have made a great contribution here and yet even now still cannot speak English fluently. As I said earlier, I often attend functions where the main language being spoken is not English, and I refer to a wonderful function I went to at the Hellenic Club here in Canberra—a wonderful community. Where would Canberra be without the Greeks? I am not quite sure. But we would not be where we are now. Their contribution has been magnificent.
You don’t have to suck up to Petro!
A section of that community held a fundraising activity for the Special Olympics ACT participants, who were recently competing in the games in Brisbane—successfully, I might add. At that particular function, several hundred people generously donated to help those kids get to the Special Olympics in Brisbane and the major thankyou speeches were given that day in Greek. Was I offended? Not at all, and neither were any of the Special Olympians. The question here is really: why do we devise these crazy tests and what grounds and values do we put a tick beside to indicate that they are a good idea? Not one of those people in that room was failing to contribute to our community—not one of them. If they want to have their big speeches in Greek, good on them; I could not be happier. That is not the test. The test is what they are doing living in and contributing to this community, not whether or not they have a speech at the Greek club in Greek.
I would be less cynical about the government’s motivations in raising this issue if this very government had not slashed almost $11 million from its Adult Migrant English Program. How crazy. It is unethical for a government to constantly talk about the importance of citizenship and integration whilst cutting funding to programs which will facilitate that very integration. There was no legislative requirement in years gone by. There was a course of encouragement and welcome, with an English language course available—for all of those years—for those who could get there. Of course they benefited if they could. But the member for Sydney brought out some very important points about the reality of living with family, working and having all sorts of commitments, and whether or not you can easily access these sorts of English courses, values courses or whatever else we are thinking about.
The government often raises these issues and applies them to certain ethnic and religious groups in a way that concerns me. My fear, my deep concern, is that the debate about citizenship is being used as a political tool and could end up dividing people in this country in a way that we have not seen before. The member for Port Adelaide put it so well. The bipartisan attitude towards citizenship in this country is now under threat, and that is what we do not want to see happen. I am happy to debate the issues about language skills and citizenship but not if it is going to be used to marginalise and discriminate against certain people in this country.
I will finish by saying that I have seen the new ads on television encouraging citizenship. They are all very lovely, but I have not seen one yet—maybe it exists; maybe I am not watching TV at the right time of day—where there is an obviously black person or an obviously veiled person. They are all looking fairly mainstream. The other comment I make is: why run these ads encouraging citizenship while at the same time proposing that we put up hurdles and barriers to that very citizenship process? For me, nothing is better than to go to a citizenship ceremony in my city, here in Canberra, and to see the joy and the commitment that people have made. Some have come here by economic and social choice. Some have come here from the most shocking of backgrounds. But the one thing that they have in common is that they stand up and take that oath really wanting to do so. I do not know what test we could devise that is going to make them prove more than they do now what they really want to do by living in and contributing to this community.
In summary, I support these bills on the whole, as a bitter pill, but I strongly support the motion moved by the shadow minister for immigration. Among other things, it opposes the increase in residence requirement to four years. That increase is a crazy notion. I really hope against all hope that that amendment will get up and we can get a bit of sensibleness back into part of the bill.
I rise to talk about the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. The main purpose of these bills is to rewrite and consolidate the old Australian Citizenship Act 1948. This act has been amended many times since then. Back in 1993-94 the Joint Standing Committee on Migration conducted an inquiry into the act. One of the conclusions of that inquiry was that the act was cumbersome and dated and needed to be rewritten in clear language. The second purpose of these bills is to address problems that some people have as a result of old rules about dual citizenship. The third purpose is to increase the waiting period from the current two years to four years, once government mooted amendments are in place.
These bills are here before us at the same time that a discussion paper about Australian citizenship, issued by the government, is in circulation. That discussion paper raises a number of issues that I want to talk about a bit later. These bills do not directly cross any of the issues raised in the discussion paper, but they are related and I guess that in the ideal world those issues would have been addressed in these bills. However, I am not suggesting that these bills be delayed any further, given that they have been lying on the table for 12 months already.
At Federation in 1901, Australian citizenship as a legal status did not exist. There is no mention of citizenship in the Australian Constitution. Australia’s population then consisted of British subjects who were permanently residing in Australia, British subjects who were temporarily here and ‘aliens’. The legal status of Australian ‘citizen’ came into effect on 26 January 1949 under the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. The title of this act changed later to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948.
What is citizenship? It is useful to set it out. The preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act states:
Australian citizenship represents formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia;
and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity;
and Persons granted Australian citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations
by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people, and
by sharing their democratic beliefs, and
by respecting their rights and liberties, and
by upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.
Those words are very familiar to all of us who go to citizenship ceremonies. It is fascinating now to read the speech that went with the introduction of the 1948 bill. I am indebted to the Parliamentary Library for this information. The Australian Citizenship Act 1948 was proclaimed to commence operation from 26 January 1949. The introduction of the 1948 act took place in the context of establishing Australian citizenship for the first time, while maintaining the status of ‘British subject’ for Australians. The minister who introduced the bill said:
The bill is not designed to make an Australian any less a British subject, but to help him express his pride in citizenship of this great country. … To say that one is an Australian is, of course, to indicate beyond all doubt that one is British; but to claim to be of the British race does not make it clear that one is an Australian. The time has come for Australia and the other dominions to recognize officially and legally their maturity as members of the British Commonwealth by the passage of separate citizenship laws. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill that will enable Australia to proclaim its own national citizenship …
The link between Australian and British citizenship was finally severed in 1984. It is interesting to note these words from nearly 60 years ago and to realise how much we have changed since then. At this time when we are talking about citizenship and values, some people are worried that the world is changing too fast. It would be cynical of me to suggest that some people are actually encouraging us to be worried and fear to change—but that is an issue for another day. We have moved well away from seeing ourselves as an offshoot of Britain. At that time, the almost cringing attitude was probably a reflection of where the community saw itself, but it certainly is not how we see ourselves today. Today, a person can become an Australian citizen in a number of ways: by birth, by descent, by adoption or by grant of citizenship. It is the last method of becoming an Australian citizen that we are discussing today.
The bill, which was originally put on the Notice Paper more than 12 months ago, had a change to amend the waiting period for citizenship from two years to three years. We were told at the time that this was because of security concerns. I understand that those concerns were discussed at COAG and that COAG agreed to a 10-point plan, which included increasing the waiting period for citizenship from two years to three years. That was 12 months ago. Now we have an amendment to the bill, proposed by the government, that the waiting period be increased to four years. I will make two points about this. Firstly, it has taken 12 months to get this bill to the point of being debated. One really has to question the validity of the argument that the period should be changed from two years to three years on security grounds if a delay of 12 months is of no consequence. It is worth noting that, in the intervening 12 months, approximately 117,000 people became Australian citizens—people who would have had to wait, for security reasons, had this bill been dealt with when it was first mooted.
The second point worth making is the process, or lack of process, in the move to four years. As I said, we have been told that originally the government had security concerns which it took to COAG. COAG agreed to the 10-point plan, which included increasing the waiting period to three years. Now we are being asked to support increasing the period to four years, but there has been no discussion or consultation about this and no reasons offered for this latest move.
I have to ask: why this change and why now? We are in a period of debate about Australian values and discussion about rules of citizenship. If you were a cynic, you would question the real motive behind this change. There has been no reason put forward for the move from three to four years. I find it hard to accept the validity of the argument of security for the move from two to three years, given the long delay in getting this bill to the point of being debated. I cannot support the move to four years, given the lack of argument for that move.
One of the changes in this bill which I think is good allows citizenship to be restored and granted to many people who were forced to renounce it or who lost it as a result of the old legislation. Originally, anyone wanting to take out Australian citizenship had to renounce citizenship of other countries. That requirement was dropped in 1986. In 2002, section 17 was repealed, which meant that Australian citizens taking out citizenship of another country did not automatically lose their Australian citizenship. Amendments made at the time allowed those who had lost their citizenship to regain it if they met certain conditions. Those conditions included a continuing and close association with Australia, an intention to continue to live in Australia for three years or an intention to commence living in Australia within three years. Unfortunately, the condition about living in Australia stopped a number of people resuming their Australian citizenship. It meant that those who took out citizenship in another country in 2002 or later were able to hold dual citizenship—that is, their initial Australian citizenship plus another—even though they do not intend to live in Australia in the near future. However, those who took out citizenship of another country before 2002 have lost Australian citizenship and many cannot resume it. It is clear from evidence that was given to the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional References Committee that a number of these people do not even realise they have lost their Australian citizenship. This bill takes away that conflict. This bill allows those who lost citizenship through the old section 17 to resume that citizenship. The only condition now is that applicants must be of good character.
The second group of people with issues that are addressed by this bill are children of Australian citizens who return to the country of origin, when the children later renounce Australian citizenship. The classic example, as you have heard other speakers talk about, is many members of the Maltese community or, more particularly, children born in Australia to parents who came here from Malta. As they were born in Australia, under Australian citizenship laws these children became Australian citizens. As children of Maltese-born parents, they were also automatically deemed to be Maltese citizens. Some of the parents decided to return to Malta, taking their children with them. Before 2000, Maltese law required such persons to renounce any foreign citizenship by the time they were 19 years of age if they were to retain their Maltese citizenship. Maltese citizenship at the time was virtually essential for the education, social welfare and economic benefits it offered, so most of these now young adults did renounce their Australian citizenship. These people lost their citizenship under section 18—that is, they were deemed to have renounced their Australian citizenship rather than having lost citizenship by acquiring citizenship of another country. The original bill did not extend the same, more relaxed rules to those who renounced their citizenship as it did to those who simply lost their citizenship. I understand that recent amendments that were put forward by the government mean that both sets of people will now be able to regain their Australian citizenship if they pass a test of good character, and this is a welcome amendment.
Again in the original bill there was provision for a person to be denied citizenship if that person had served time in prison. The original bill gave the minister no discretion and he or she had to refuse an application if that person had spent time in prison. That provision is very short-sighted, and I hope it was put in there without too much thought. I understand that it is now being removed by an amendment the government is proposing. But, just in case, let me spell out the problem with that particular provision. If passed into law, this provision means that we cannot accept as an Australian citizen anyone who has spent time in prison, regardless of where that sentence was served or why. I am not suggesting that a serial murderer should be given Australian citizenship—indeed, that person would presumably be barred by the good character test—but the provision, unless amended, will affect a person who has served time on trumped-up charges in a country where the reigning authority is brutal—for instance, Iraq. It is crazy to let this provision pass as it first appeared. We should not let another country’s laws decide who will become Australian citizens. We must reserve that privilege for ourselves. We must decide the criteria for Australian citizenship.
The final aspect of this bill I want to discuss is the provision which says that the minister must refuse an application for citizenship if that person has an adverse security assessment by ASIO. It is not clear to me just what information the minister gets when a person has an adverse security assessment. It is not at all clear that the person concerned gets any details of that assessment, and therefore they are not in a position to challenge that assessment. This smacks of Big Brother. Whilst we must protect ourselves from security risks, we must also make sure that proper processes are in place to ensure that appropriate assessments are made and that this does not become a backdoor way of denying citizenship.
I referred earlier to a discussion paper that has been issued by the government about Australian citizenship. That paper asks us to address four questions: about whether or not we should introduce a formal test for aspiring citizens, about how important knowledge of Australia is for an Australian citizen, about the level of English language required to participate as an Australian, and about the importance of a commitment to Australian values and way of life of aspiring citizens. At the moment, those applying for Australian citizenship have to have been here for two years and have to be committed to staying here or at least maintaining a close association with Australia. Applicants go through an interview process and are required to demonstrate a basic capacity to understand and speak English—enough to be able to answer simple questions about themselves. Applicants are given information about Australia: our values, our history, how our system of government works and, of course, about the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
The discussion paper canvasses the benefits of a formal test to ensure applicants know what our values are, know something of our history and how we do things, and can speak and understand English. In the ideal world every person living in Australia would be able to read and write in English fluently. And, by the way, it would not do us any harm to be able to communicate confidently in other languages either, but that is another issue. The reality is that not even all Australian-born Australians can read and write fluently.
The reality also is that many migrants in this country have contributed enormously to our economic development and our quality of life despite not having good English and, in many cases, having very little English. Many migrants who came here in the postwar period never learnt much English. They did, however, make sure their children learnt English and many of them were very determined that their children got the very best education. This education often extended well beyond the compulsory schooling age. They were determined that their children would have opportunities that they did not have. They were determined that their children finished their education with training and a qualification that allowed them to enter the workforce and so contribute to our society. There is no way we can say that this cohort of migrants has not contributed in a very positive way to our society; but would they have passed a rigorous English language test? Maybe, but maybe not. The real test that is needed, if one can be devised, is a determination to contribute.
My experience tells me that most migrants have come here in the first place because they want to get on, and that determination to do well is all that is needed in the first instance. Being able to communicate properly in English is obviously something everyone in the country should be able to do. I am just not convinced that the inability to do so, particularly if someone has not been here very long, is a reason, in itself, to bar a person from citizenship.
At the same time as the government is talking about the need for everyone to know English, we see it slashing funds to the migrant English language program. The logic of this is lost on me. We either care about people learning English or we do not. We cannot talk about English being so important that someone may be barred from being an Australian because they do not have a good grasp of the language on the one hand and, on the other, take away funding of the very programs that help newly arrived people learn our language. This action makes me query the real reason behind the implied push by this government to introduce formal testing for those applying for citizenship.
I want to finish on the matter of values. All of a sudden we are talking about Australian values as though there is no tomorrow. The discussion taking place in some quarters is very insulting and offensive. I have heard people in this place talk about our unique values, as though no-one else shares our values or has similar values. If we are asked what our values are we get answers like decency, tolerance, respect for others and even the dreaded word ‘mateship’. I heard Dame Edna say, just this week, that as far as she was concerned we need only one value: niceness. She is probably right. None of these values is unique to Australia or Australians. We do not have a monopoly on values. It is offensive to other cultures and to other countries to think or say that we do, or to act as though we do. Good values are important; they should be at the base of everything we do. It does not do us any harm to remember a few of these values when we are drafting legislation.
It is important that we are all reminded of our values from time to time. It is a useful thing to take advantage of a citizenship ceremony to reflect for a minute on our values; to remind our new citizens, and ourselves, of our values. This is a long way from saying that we need to present applicants for citizenship with a test on values. Just think of the absurdity of the concept. Think about what the test might be trying to achieve. Is the purpose of the test to identify the people we do not want here because they are bad eggs? Would a test of values do this job? I do not think so. That is what police checks and character tests are for.
Is the purpose to tell applicants that these are Australian values? This is probably a more useful objective but a test is not the way to do it. It is far better to give this information to people as they arrive and as they apply for citizenship. The clear message should be that these are the traits that Australians hold dear and that are important to our way of life. The message should not be that these are the things that we suspect you, the new arrival, have never heard of, that you had better start learning and that there will be a test in due course.
One trait or value that I admire is generosity. The attitude behind this discussion paper is not one of generosity. It paints us as a mean-spirited people; a community prepared to ride on the back of the hard work done by a generation of migrants but not one prepared to share our good fortune with anyone else. It paints us as a people scared of anyone who is not just like us. This is a narrow, mean way of looking at the world. It is also short-sighted. We are capable of much better and I call on the government to think again about how we apply the values we ascribe to ourselves.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 and also to speak on the amendment moved by the member for Watson. One thing that we often forget in Australia is that we are all migrants—often when we go to citizenship ceremonies we even forget that ourselves. The Aboriginal people came here some 40,000 years ago and settled in this country, and the rest of us probably came here over the last 200 years from previous generations. Our country is made up of over 190 different nationalities, which have all combined to create a distinctly Australian way of life and culture. It is a harmonious culture that has defined our character without civil war or conflict. In fact, in less than 200 years we have been able to achieve what many nations or civilisations have taken up to 2,000 years to achieve, and that is a great credit to Australia and the people who have come here over those years.
The broad components of this bill are generally supported by the opposition. Indeed, why it has taken the government so long to get to the stage we are at today is, quite frankly, beyond me. It would appear that when the government put forward much of the legislation, which was announced with a great deal of fanfare, it had one eye on the polls and since then, of course, it has all evaporated. For goodness sake, the bill was introduced in November 2005 yet debate has only begun this week. At the time, 12 months ago, following the cowardly attacks on communities in London, we were told there was a massive security imperative to amend our citizenship requirements. Indeed, one of the central components of the original bill was to increase the citizenship waiting period from two to three years based on security advice given to the federal government and agreed in the COAG 10-point plan.
Why has the government ignored this security advice for 12 months? Just this week we have heard that over 117,000 people have been processed for citizenship under the old system—the very same system the government believes was deficient in screening out security threats to this country—while this bill was gathering dust. And we are told by this government that, for security reasons, it wants to expand the citizenship waiting period to four years. What is the security advice, and why did the government sit on its hands for 12 months following the additional advice? The parliamentary secretary has provided no justification for the increase to four years—no justification whatsoever.
In September in the Australian, Stuart Rintoul posed the question of whether a recently naturalised Sudanese family would have made better citizens if they had been required to wait four years instead of two. Stuart Rintoul wrote:
It was a question Mr Robb never really answered as he spoke of the Government’s ‘judgment’ that it took four years to understand Australia’s history, laws and culture sufficiently to become a citizen, just as in Britain there was a five-year wait.
The parliamentary secretary was then quoted in the article as follows:
‘Our judgment is that for most people two years is not sufficient to have, in their DNA, what it is that makes Australia tick,’ he said.
Four years is far too long. What am I going to tell my constituents about the increase in waiting times—that the government had a feeling in its waters, or that the parliamentary secretary spun a chocolate wheel and it landed on the number 4?
This is an issue in Western Australia, where I am informed that around 12 per cent of residents were born in the United Kingdom or Ireland and over five per cent were born in Asia. In fact, in recent years, Western Australia has had the highest proportion of overseas migration in the nation. This fact is reflected in the many wonderful citizenship ceremonies I attend at the councils of South Perth, Victoria Park, Belmont, Canning and Gosnells.
I am sure we have all been to the citizenship ceremonies. To witness the genuine enthusiasm that these new Australians feel when they take their oaths of allegiance to our nation is, as I am sure all members will attest, a very moving experience and it makes us proud to be Australians. Whether attending a citizenship ceremony, being handed a native kangaroo paw for their garden or observing the welcoming ceremony of a local Indigenous dance group, witnessing the pride and sincerity in which these Australians take the oath is one of the great pleasures of being a member of parliament. Let me say, however, that I believe there are some double standards here.
Let me make the first point. Citizenship is a wonderful thing, but even the best and brightest of our new citizens—those with Australianness running through their DNA, to quote the parliamentary secretary—can never aspire to hold the highest office in the land: our head of state, currently Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.
The second point is about the difference between a citizen’s oath and our own oath as a federal member when we take up office. I have long believed it is bizarre that our duty to the Australian people is not better reflected in our oath or affirmation of office. It is simply incongruous that federal members must swear allegiance to the head of state but not to those people they represent—the Australian people. Acknowledgement of an MP’s responsibilities to the people of Australia should be made in addition to the oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. I believe Australians find it strange that federal parliamentarians make no formal acknowledgement of their allegiance to those people who directly elected them. The sentiments of the citizenship oath, which pledges loyalty to Australia and its people, should be echoed by the oath taken by MPs.
Late last year, the Western Australian parliament took the step of allowing MPs the choice of declaring their loyalty to the Queen or to the people of the state. New South Wales took a similar step earlier this year. In Western Australia, Ben Wyatt, the new member for Victoria Park, a state seat that falls within my federal boundaries, become the first MP in Australia to give his allegiance only to his state following the by-election in the seat formerly held by Dr Geoff Gallop. Ben Wyatt is making a fantastic contribution to Victoria Park as a Noongar member of the parliament, one of the first owners of the land—one of the first settlers I talked about who came here over 40,000 years ago. Ben is making a great contribution. I believe that this would make a fantastic development at the federal level.
As we have heard, this bill will update Australia’s citizenship law by replacing the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. The significance of the 1948 act is particularly interesting because, with its enactment, the government of Ben Chifley introduced the principle of citizenship for Australians as Australian rather than British. The empire was of course in decline and independence movements across the globe were dramatically altering the prewar colonial landscape. Vast migration programs to Commonwealth countries such as Australia were also underway. Australian citizens remained British subjects but, from the proclamation of the act in January 1949, were recognised as citizens of their own country. The act did of course retain the concept of aliens—those defined as not British subjects. Amendments to the Nationality and Citizenship Act in later years progressively changed the assumption of this Britishness. Indeed, the concept of ‘British subject’ was removed by the 1973 amendment, although the concept of ‘alien’ remained until 1986.
In recent months, the issue of the 1948 act has arisen in terms of the government’s plan to introduce a citizenship test. I believe it was the member for Kooyong, who is here today, who made the point recently that, under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, people are currently assessed on the following: basic English language knowledge, understanding the nature of the application and its meaning, and an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. Yet, paradoxically, we have a government that was prepared to cut over $10 million from the Adult Migrant English Program. As the Australian’s Greg Sheridan wrote in September:
We also know that English language, while immensely useful, is not absolutely essential for the deep personal commitment that citizenship involves. Surely we all know Cantonese grandmothers, east European family patriarchs and others who have made wonderful Australian citizens but who could not have passed this silly test.
Mr Sheridan continued:
Moreover, there is reason to doubt the Howard Government’s good faith here. In its early years in office it cut funding to English language training for migrants. A report by the nation’s education ministers accuses the Government of seriously under-funding the English language teaching of refugee children. That is not boat people or visa over-stayers, but people we choose to take as refugees from camps around the world.
I know from past experience of a lot of situations in this country where migrants have come in from, say, Greece or Italy, or from many other countries, and the husband has gone to work and had an opportunity to work with other Australians who speak English. They have learnt to speak English through that mechanism. But the mothers or the wives at home have not had an opportunity to learn English. Some of those people are now grandmothers, and they still have great difficulty in speaking English. Under this proposed arrangement, despite the fact that their families have made a fantastic contribution to this country, we would not allow them to become citizens because they do not speak English. How ludicrous is that? Many of them have children, and their children have children who are making a wonderful contribution. But, under these proposed rules, no, they are not allowed to be Australian. I think that is ridiculous. It is just crazy.
Once again we are dealing with a sneaky government. We talked about Australian values. To me, we want people coming to this country to have the Australian values of a fair go and tolerance. That, as I said before, is the reason we have built up such a wonderful country over the last 200 years. But we have a government that, whilst preaching a fair go and tolerance, does not display a fair go and tolerance. It is the most anti fair go and intolerant government I have ever seen in this nation.
We are dealing with a sneaky government, as I said. This side of the House believes that our national security is too important for the games being played by this government and, quite frankly, for the 12 months of incompetence that has delayed this debate. Attacks on Australian workers and the least fortunate in our community are quickly implemented by this government, yet important initiatives which have the broad support of the House are left to gather dust. The member for Watson has moved an important amendment which I said earlier I fully support. I call on members to support his amendment which states:
I recently spoke of the persecution of the followers of the Baha’i Faith in Iran, and I dread to think that followers who arrive on our shores may be denied citizenship because of false imprisonment under the Iranian regime. I believe the amendment proposed by the member for Watson satisfies the requirement for a reasonable period of time for people who reside in Australia to seek citizenship and welcomes with open arms people who wish to call Australia home, with all the rights and obligations that that entails. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Australian citizenship legislation before us tonight consolidates and rewrites the old Citizenship Act of 1948. The legislation also implements measures to allow citizenship for many who have lost it or who did not have access due to former restrictions on dual citizenship. This includes members of the Maltese community, Australian citizens who have adopted children from overseas and people from a PNG background. The amendments proposed in this bill also give effect to the decision to increase the waiting period for citizenship from two to four years, which, as previous speakers have indicated, we oppose. The updating of the act to include the new recommendations has been discussed by committees of both the Senate and the House, and I think that the amendment put forward by the member for Watson highlights some of the inadequacies of the overall legislation before us today.
When I considered what to say about the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005, I had very mixed feelings. A number of feelings pervaded and contradicted each other. Australia has gone down a road that I do not think we should be embracing, and I really fear for the future. I fear for where we will be in 10 years time. I fear for the kind of nation that we have become. I have always thought of Australia as a very inclusive, caring nation—one that I was so proud to be a citizen of—but some of the things that have happened in this country since 2001 make me ashamed and make me question the future.
It is good to see the member for Kooyong in this House now, because I think he has made some very positive contributions in respect of where our nation is heading. He is one voice in a government that is not inclusive of people who come from overseas and seek to become citizens. Things have happened that should not have happened. These are times when people who have turned to Australia for assistance and solace have not been given that assistance and solace. These are times when we have deflected our thoughts and actions away from core issues and core values; however, the idea of including value statements in citizenship ceremonies is fraught with danger.
One of the experiences that I have enjoyed more than anything else as a member of parliament has been to attend citizenship ceremonies. Members on both sides of the House have talked about their experiences. I was at a citizenship ceremony last week, and I was overwhelmed. Amongst the people who were taking out citizenship were a number that I had directly helped to get their visa to come into Australia. Subsequently they have had children, and they have been embraced and welcomed into Australian families. They came up to me and thanked me for the support that I had given them at a time when they needed it. What I did was no different from what other members on both sides of this House do, but I found their gratitude and the feeling of pride in becoming Australian citizens overwhelming. It was so important to the people who were part of this ceremony to now be considered truly Australian.
This bill will make it harder for people to become citizens. We should embrace and encourage people to take out citizenship. When I spoke at this ceremony last week, I encouraged people to take out citizenship. I told them that we were debating this legislation this week in parliament and that, if they have friends or relatives who are thinking about taking out citizenship, they should do it now; if they do not, they will have to wait four years. I understand what a big step it is for a person to decide to take out citizenship of another country. Even though they do not have to give up citizenship of their own country, it is still a very big step.
At citizenship ceremonies, I ask people how long they had been in Australia before they took out citizenship and the longest case was 82 years; at Lake Macquarie City Council, the record is 87 years. It is not a frivolous decision to take out citizenship of a nation; people think about it and they value it. I think that, in the current climate, the government is moving down the track of viewing citizenship as more of a privilege rather than something that we should be encouraging. In Australia, we have an ageing population and research has shown that, even with increases in immigration, we will still have an issue surrounding an ageing population. We should be encouraging people to come to our country—not just bringing people in on temporary work visas where they are here today and gone tomorrow, but giving them the opportunity to contribute to the long-term wellbeing of our nation.
I find it hypocritical that the Howard government talks about people having to pass an English test and increasing the age that a person will have to take that test from 50 years to 60 years of age. Previous speakers have highlighted the problems associated with women who stay at home and care for children. The hypocrisy of this requirement is that in 1996 or 1997 this government cut the number of hours and the funding for English courses. That was one of the first acts that it took. If it is going to be a requirement that people have to pass English tests, it has to be properly funded. That is something that this government has not done. I think it needs to go back and think about that. The government is raising the bar but it is not putting the resources there for people to be able to jump over it.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs said, when talking about changing the residence requirements for citizenship from two years to four years:
This change together with the proposed citizenship test, with its English language requirement—
which is underfunded—
will help ensure citizenship applicants have had sufficient time in Australia to become familiar with our way of life and appreciate the commitment they are making when they become citizens.
I have news for the parliamentary secretary: I think that people already appreciate that. What does he want? Does he want them to get on the ground and grovel and say, ‘Please, please, please? I am grateful! I will be eternally grateful for the rest of my life!’ Rather, we should be embracing, welcoming and recognising that people who want to become citizens of this country actually have something to offer and we as a country should be valuing what they are prepared to give to this nation. He also said:
... increasing numbers of people spent significant periods of time in Australia as temporary residents prior to becoming permanent residents - this was why only one of the four years spent in Australia had to be as a permanent resident.
Once again, it is very much a little bit of this and a little bit of that. The member for Swan previously touched on the pledge that we as parliamentarians have to make in comparison to the citizenship pledge. The citizenship pledge is:
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
Whose democratic beliefs I share,
Whose rights and liberties I respect,
And whose laws I will uphold and obey.
What could better encapsulate the values Australians should have? I think that says it all. If people asked me what Donald Bradman’s average was, I would have to scratch my head. I would probably fail. Maybe I should not be an Australian citizen, because I am not up to speed on Donald Bradman’s average. Don’t look at me in horror, please!
You’re not an Australian!
I will be deported, yes. That it is very arbitrary and I think that the values that will be placed on people seeking to come to Australia will reflect the values of those people who are writing them as opposed to the values that we all hold dear—and what should you value more? Be loyal to your country, be committed to democracy, value people’s rights and liberties and agree to uphold the law.
I know that the parliamentary secretary has released a paper talking about Australian citizenship, called ‘Australian citizenship: much more than a ceremony’. I think we all agree with that. There would not be a person in this parliament who does not agree that it was much more than a ceremony. People make that decision after thinking very long and hard about it. As I mentioned, 82 years is the longest time spent in Australia by any person that I have been at a citizenship ceremony with, but regularly people are there who have been in Australia in excess of 60 years. So it is not a decision that people take lightly and it is much more than just a ceremony.
To think that the parliamentary secretary could trivialise it to such an extent shows that he does not really understand what people go through when they attend those ceremonies. He talks about tests; he looks at the possible parameters for testing in this paper: a written English component, an oral English component and a separate listening and reading component. People will have to do a comprehension test. I wonder whether he is going to line up all those Australians who would have problems doing a comprehension test and test them—and what happens when they fail? Are we going to send them out of Australia along with me because of my failure to understand what Donald Bradman’s test average was? It is an English language test based on an educationally defined level of competency. Wow, that is a big ask; that is quite a hurdle for people to have to jump over.
It is a test of a person’s knowledge of Australia and of our way of life. What would that encompass? Would it encompass a list of the 10 best speeches in Australia? Would it encompass when all the cricket matches are on and when the AFL and the rugby league and the rugby union matches are on? Would it encompass knowing where people meet, where there are multicultural activities and where people welcome and embrace each other? Would it be looking at the history of Australia not from what I suspect is the parliamentary secretary’s point of view but looking at the contribution that people from all nations in this world have made to this country—the contributions that have made Australia the country it is today?
In this document he details some of the tests that are undertaken in other countries. In the Netherlands there is a listening test of 40 minutes, with 25 exercises based on recorded answers and a story, and a pass mark of 40 per cent. There is a speaking test of 20 minutes, a reading test of 60 minutes and a writing test of 60 minutes. That is for 20 exercises. There would be so many Australians that would fail that test.
You can look at the tests of other countries such as the United States and those in the United Kingdom. The United States has quite an interesting one in which it asks: ‘What colour are the stripes on the flag?’ and ‘Name the highest part of the judiciary branch of our government.’ I suspect that there would be quite a few Australians who do not know the answer to those questions—and who maybe do not know how many points are on the stars on the flag or what corner the Union Jack is in. I think that what is happening here is not about ensuring that people who come to this country understand what it is to be Australian.
I think this is more of the Howard government’s wedge politics—more of the division and more of the blaming of people who come to Australia and treating them as second-class citizens. In one way or another, we have all come from another country, and I think that it is time that this government concentrated on unifying our nation—not on creating division and dwelling on the differences and on fear but on bringing people together and on the core values that make a society a great one: one of inclusiveness, one of valuing each other and one of working together as opposed to one of division.
Like a lot of speakers in this debate, as I was preparing for this speech I spent quite a bit of time thinking about the many citizenship ceremonies that I have attended in my time as the member for Capricornia and what a powerful and moving thing it is to stand with the candidates for citizenship as they recite their pledge of commitment to Australia. It is always an opportunity to congratulate those people for taking the very big step in their lives of applying for and taking on Australian citizenship, and it is also a fantastic opportunity for each of us who have been born in this country to rethink what it means to be Australian citizens. It is those sentiments that go through our minds as we approach the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005: how proud we are of Australian citizenship and what should be involved when newcomers to this country take that important step to join us as Australian citizens.
To the extent that the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 facilitates the acquisition of Australian citizenship by immigrants to this country, the Labor Party welcomes and supports the measures and the bill as a whole. But there are things that we have problems with that are encompassed in our second reading amendment, which I will turn to during the course of this speech. The bills before us this evening consolidate and rewrite the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 and, as I said, much of them facilitates the taking of citizenship according to the recommendations of the Australian Citizenship Council report which was released to the government in 2000. But I have to say that, as I read the specific provisions of the bills more closely, I said to myself that the government just cannot help itself. The government has to bring politics into play in everything it does and, sadly, nothing is out of reach for this government when it comes to playing politics and ideological games. In this instance it is citizenship, and there are also aspects of national security which this bill touches on that, you would have to say, the government has treated as fair game for its political games.
In saying that, my suspicions are really triggered by the timing of this bill. As we can see, the bill is entitled the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005. Well, 2005 is almost a year ago now, and that is what has triggered my suspicions and those of the Labor Party in approaching this bill. Some of the most significant measures in this bill came out of the response to the London bombings last year. At the time, we were told that these were very urgent measures that COAG had agreed to and had signed off on to be included in Australia’s legislative framework, but here we are, well over a year down the track, and we are only just debating this bill. So the government tells us that these things are urgent, but you do have to wonder. They are urgent in the headlines of the day but, over a year down the track, we are only just having the debate about these measures.
Of course, the measure that really comes to mind when I am making that accusation against the government is the change in this bill that will require permanent residents to wait four years before they can make their application for Australian citizenship. Under the current scheme the waiting period is two years, and after the London bombings when there was that meeting of COAG it was agreed by all the premiers and the federal government that there would be a shift from two years to three years, so that applicants for Australian citizenship would have to show that they had been permanent residents for three years.
Labor agreed with that. We agreed with that on the basis that the COAG recommendation was based on security advice at the time. We accepted that the security experts in our country had advised that it was a good idea to shift from two to three years. Of course, the Labor Party was not privy to the exact details of that advice, but, when it came out of COAG that that was the recommendation, we were prepared to accept it. A year down the track, we are now confronted with a bill that makes the shift from two years to four years, and there is no suggestion from the government that this is based on any change in the security situation. We have not been given any reasons why there has been a shift away from the proposed increase from two years to three years, which Labor supported, to an increase now from two years to four years. It appears to be on the whim of the parliamentary secretary.
So, while we are very conscious that there is always a balance in these things—a balance between the desire to encourage people to take out Australian citizenship after they have spent time in our country as permanent residents, versus the security issues involved in granting Australian citizenship to applicants for that important legal status—in a situation where we are not given any reason for the jump from two to four years, we maintain our position that we think three years is appropriate. That was based on the security assessments that COAG cited in its original recommendation, and the Labor Party see no reason to change from three years up to four years, as this bill proposes—and, of course, that is canvassed in our second reading amendment. We are just not going to support what appears to be a politically motivated and short-sighted policy.
There are a number of other changes. As I have said, we have major problems with the jump from two years to four years, and that is one of the most significant changes in the bill. There are other technical changes, which I might come back to in more detail. But I turn now to one of the changes that I guess prompted me to take part in this debate on this bill—that is, the changes that affect the Maltese community in this country.
Australia has a long history of welcoming migrants from Malta, and the descendants of those migrants make up the large and very significant Maltese community that lives in Australia today. Nowhere is that community more important than in the city of Mackay, which is just to the north of my electorate of Capricornia. It is the place where I grew up, so I am very familiar with the important role that the Maltese community plays in Mackay. I must admit, though, that I did not realise just how far back the history of the Maltese community in Mackay extended. I was having a look at the Mackay Maltese Club website this afternoon and I found that, in fact, the history of the Maltese migrants in Mackay goes back to 1883, when a shipload of Maltese migrants was indentured to work in the cane fields, and they settled in the Mackay area.
Over the years, many more Maltese immigrants came and joined those original settlers in Mackay, and they really have been the backbone of the cane industry over many generations. They started out doing the hard yakka, cutting cane and working in the fields. Over the years they formed partnerships, often between family groups, and bought their own farms. They now make up 25 per cent of the Mackay region’s population. Mackay has about 125,000 residents and some 25 per cent of them are descended from those original Maltese immigrants. Growing up in the area, I was surrounded by Camilleris, Schembris, Vellas, Borgs, Galeas and all those names that people from the Mackay region associate with the Maltese community. We know that those families have made enormous contributions and continue to make enormous contributions, both in the sugar industry and in the life of the community generally.
I will go back to the bill and what it means for the Maltese community. The bill seeks to address the situation where a person has lost their Australian citizenship through the operation of section 17 of the Citizenship Act. So, where someone has taken on other citizenship and lost their Australian citizenship, this bill makes it easier for those people to regain their Australian citizenship.
The Maltese community are in a slightly different situation. In the example of Maltese migrants, their Australian-born children were deemed Australian citizens but, as their parents were Maltese born, still retained their Maltese citizenship. In order to retain Maltese citizenship, prior to 2000 the law in Malta said that these individuals had to renounce their foreign citizenship before they reached the age of 19. The cohort of Maltese who returned to Malta and renounced their Australian citizenship faced a number of hurdles in attempting to regain Australian citizenship.
This bill, as I understand it, will address the situation of those people who lost their Australian citizenship by reason of the operation of section 17, but it does not help the children people whose citizenship was renounced through the operation of section 18. So, in particular, it leaves out the children of Maltese migrants who were forced to renounce their citizenship under the law of Malta.
This was addressed in the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee inquiry into Australian expatriates entitled They still call Australia home: inquiry into Australian expatriates. The inquiry heard evidence from people representing the children born after their parents had renounced their Australian citizenship. This was particularly the case for those people who had returned to Malta and who were forced to renounce their citizenship as a result of the law of Malta. The Labor Party have flagged this in our second reading amendment, and I believe that we will also be moving specific amendments to deal with this situation. I would encourage the government to consider these amendments, because there seems to be no reason to discriminate between people who have lost their citizenship in those various situations.
In the time I have left I want to turn to another aspect not of this citizenship bill but of the government’s immigration policy in general—that is, the use of 457, or ‘skilled migration’, visas. These visas have become a much discussed issue in many areas of Australia, and that is certainly the case in Rockhampton. As the Labor Party has said all along, there is a place in Australia for genuine skilled migration, but the 457 system has become synonymous with rorting. There are few if any checks being conducted by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs into whether or not a real skills shortage actually exists in a particular area before granting a company access to these imported workers, and that is where I think this system of 457 visas has really fallen down. There does not appear to be the necessary rigorous assessment by the government—or, more specifically, by the department—of whether or not a skills shortage exists in the area and whether the applicant to hire 457 visa holders has made reasonable attempts to fill the position with a local worker. Often the company’s word is taken for granted by the department, leading to widespread abuse of the visa class and a lowering of workplace conditions for the workers.
As the Labor Party have said numerous times—I have to say we have been proved right on many of the occasions on which we have raised these concerns—this is all part of John Howard’s wages race to the bottom. It is part of his plan to ensure that Australia’s working conditions are peeled back and that we compete with China and India on wages, rather than skills.
We all know that it is the government’s failure to supply adequate training opportunities for Australians that has lead to the current skills shortage, and the Prime Minister came out a couple of weeks ago with his announcement of a skills package. But we know that the government’s answer to the skills shortage has always been this short-sighted and short-term reliance on imported workers.
The Prime Minister denies over and over again that the 457 visa system is being rorted. We even saw the hard cold facts revealed in Senate estimates put to the government in question time today, and they still denied that this system is ripe for exploitation. This was shown even before the estimates hearing today. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs admitted back in September that her department was investigating no fewer than 182 employers for alleged breaches of the 457 visa scheme.
Time and time again, Labor has brought to the House examples of 457 visa holders who have been differentially treated in the workplace, and time and time again the government returns with little more than lip service to the issue. There are hundreds of 457 visa holders—and I mean literally hundreds—working in one meatworks in Rockhampton while, five kilometres down the road, there is a meatworks operating with an almost 100 per cent—I know it is not 100 per cent but it is almost 100 per cent—local Australian workforce. You have to ask what is going on with this 457 visa system if you can have one company relying very heavily on the 457 visa to find skilled workers—or so-called skilled workers—while five kilometres down the road another company in the same industry is managing to fill their needs with local workers.
In another industry, we recently saw the example of the Filipino welders in Brisbane being paid 20 per cent less than the market rate of pay, and they were workers with insufficient English to understand safety instructions, as well as numerous other examples of 457 visa holders being underpaid and working under conditions that are unacceptable for Australian workers.
This issue needs to be resolved by this government. We are all aware of the necessity of utilising foreign skills in specific niche areas where those skills genuinely cannot be found in Australia or parts of Australia. But, when it comes down to the rights of overseas workers being violated or when the use of the workers is a tool to bring down Australian workers’ wages and conditions, the system needs reviewing—and it needs reviewing quickly.
As I said, this legislation largely has Labor’s support to the extent that the measures allow citizenship for individuals who lost it and for those who did not have access to it due to previous dual citizenship restrictions. We also support the measures that facilitate the obtaining of Australian citizenship by appropriate applicants. But we do reject the use of Australian citizenship as a political pawn by the government whenever it feels the need to create a diversion or to play wedge politics. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Australian citizenship is a source of great pride for those of us who are privileged enough to hold it. It is also a source of enormous pride for those of us who participate in citizenship ceremonies for newcomers. Actually it is not true to say ‘newcomers’; as the previous speaker, the member for Shortland mentioned, it is often people who have been in this country for many decades who take that step. But whenever that step is taken, it is to be congratulated and welcomed. We reject any attempts by this government to use citizenship in the practice of wedge politics.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to say a few words on these very important bills, the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. These are very important bills which have been a long time coming. Before I get into the substance and some of the issues related to the bills, I want to note that there has been a lot of talk in this place about security and security issues—particularly in relation to citizenship. I want to make the point that the citizenship bill was first brought forward in November 2005, but we are only debating it now.
A whole year has gone by during which the government has made issues over citizenship, security matters and security checking for individuals. In that period of time, as we found out in estimates only days ago, 117,208 people have been processed for citizenship under the old system. We have a dichotomy. On the one hand, the government has been saying how urgent and important it is to ensure citizenship checking and security checks so that only people of good character are allowed into this country. On the other hand, 12 months have gone by and 117,000-plus people have been allowed in under the old system. I just do not think it is good enough that the government has allowed this legislation to sit for so long.
There might be an explanation in the fact that the government often uses important measures like this as a political tool. That is what offends me: this bill is being used, in part, as a political tool. It is very important legislation which is supported by the Labor Party because it does address a lot of essential things. There are a lot of deficiencies in the current system that needed to be looked at. But we have seen, in the past 12 months, 117,000 people processed without ASIO being able to legally refuse someone’s citizenship application based on any knowledge of a security risk that they might have posed. I find that move by this government almost bizarre. Labor believes that Australia’s national security and citizenship laws are far too important for the government to have made the decision, on the whim of a parliamentary secretary, to delay this legislation.
I also want to make the point that citizenship confers on people a great honour and a great privilege but, in itself, does not protect anybody from a would-be terrorist. In itself, it does not do anything like that. Citizenship can give us a better understanding of who the person is, but it does not necessarily protect us, as we found out in the United Kingdom, where terrorists were actually British citizens—and not just British citizens but natural-born British citizens. We found that in Australia would-be terrorists, or people who potentially planned to commit a number of crimes, were Australian citizens and were born here. Of course it is no different in the United States, where terrorists and would-be terrorists are of American citizenship or of American descent. So citizenship in itself is not a protection mechanism, but I believe it is a very important mechanism as to how we define ourselves and a great honour to be bestowed on anybody.
I concur with the member for Capricornia when she spoke briefly about the pride that people feel at the many citizenship ceremonies we attend—as I am sure you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins. The room is always filled with many smiling people taking great pride in becoming Australians. They do it with a great sense of purpose, duty and responsibility, and you would be hard-pressed to find anybody who does not do it for the right reasons. Of course we need to be vigilant and of course we need to ensure that the people we give our citizenship to are people of good character. There is no doubt about that. That is something that the Labor Party supports. In fact, I think citizenship is so important that we need to get it right, and this bill comes very close to getting it right. But there are a couple of areas that I will talk about in a moment where I think we may not have got it quite right.
The citizenship legislation also gives us an opportunity to talk a little about what citizenship means to different people. It certainly means something very important to me. I became a citizen in 1974 and have since relinquished my previous citizenship. It is something that is very important to me and my family and to my parents, as I know it is to everybody else who takes it on. You feel this new sense of loyalty. You feel this new sense of pride that Australia really is your country, that this really is your home. It does not mean, of course, that you ever forget where you came from or that somehow that diminishes who you are as a person, your heritage or your culture, but it does mean that you feel much more a part of Australian society and much more a part of our culture, of our ways.
There has been a lot of discussion in the community and in parliament about testing people, about requiring them to do certain things, some of which are good and some of which are not so good. But they certainly are important. It would not be easy to find an equal platform on which to define just what Australian citizenship or being Australian means to everybody. There would be a whole range of definitions, a whole range of different views. I think there would be less agreement on defining what it is to be Australian than there would be on defining what it is to be un-Australian, because we hear it so often. It is bandied around this place almost as a daily word used to describe a whole range of things—anything we find distasteful, anything we do not agree with. If somebody in the community who perhaps does not look Australian, even if they are and even if they are a fourth generation Australian, suddenly commits a some horrible act or something we find disgusting, then they are described as un-Australian. We find that all over the place, but that in itself does us very little justice in here or in trying to deliver the exact message to people who may want to become Australian citizens.
There are things that all of us could probably agree are un-Australian. I would say they are ‘un’ anybody’s culture—un-European, un-American, un-British. For example, I would agree that the riots we saw in Sydney not so long ago were un-Australian—not a nice thing. If they took place in the United States, people over there might say that that behaviour was un-American.
What is important here is that, through our laws, citizenship is given to the right people, to people who actually want to take it up for the right reasons, and that the government does everything in its power to support them. The government needs to take its role seriously, and it is more than just the role of setting down a set of rules and guidelines as to what citizenship is about. It really is also a role of supporting those people and giving them the tools they need to become fully-participating Australians.
One way the government could provide those tools, of course, is through the Adult Migrant English Program, which actually helps them learn the English language. I agree with many people that being taught English as part of living in Australia is very important. It is important to how you get on in life here. It is important to your prospects of obtaining a job and to assimilating to whatever level you desire with the people around you and becoming part of your own area, part of the new culture and part of this new entity that people coming to Australia experience.
I have many Vietnamese migrants in my electorate, along with many others—Chinese, Spanish, Italian and a whole range of people. I always say to them it is important to learn English. It is important to teach your children the new ways. It is important for you to learn the new ways, but it is just as important not to forget the old ways. It is important not to forget your own language, your own culture, your own food and where you come from. I think the two have to be married together. If I could define anything about what really being Australian is, that is it—being able to accept others for what they are and where they have come from. In this parliament we have a number of people who were not born in Australia; I think it is one of the great strengths of this parliament and our democracy that we are adult enough and mature enough as a nation to accept that people who are Australian but may not have been born here can be and are loyal to Australia. I think that is an important point to make. It certainly is a very important point for many people I know.
But the government has got it wrong in a couple of areas—firstly, the extension of the waiting period for citizenship from two to four years. We supported the recommendation by COAG, which was based on some classified security information, that the waiting period should be extended from two to three years, and that would be the right number. That would allow for the right processes to take place and we support that, but we do not think it is right to make people wait four years. Basically you are delaying the opportunity for people to fully participate in our society. And the government can give us no good reason for it. There is no explanation; there is no justification. It is just an abstract number pulled out of the air. If there were some security analysis or some sort of evidence brought forward that said changing it from two to four years is better than changing it from two to three years then perhaps we could support it, but we cannot support that part of this legislation because it is no good. Three years is the right time to have the security checks and to ensure that people have the right access to the tools and mechanisms provided by government so they can fully participate and make the right decision about becoming a citizen.
If you have made that commitment to Australia, I am sure that you would like to become a citizen after 12 months. We have put a hurdle there. We have said, ‘No, you have to wait.’ We have agreed that you should have to wait three years. Three years is a long time if a person has made a commitment to this country. Given all the other rules and checks that are in place, three years is the right time. Four years is wrong. The government has got it wrong and it cannot give us a good reason. It should just review it and make it three years.
The other thing is that the government needs to support people and provide them with the right tools. That should be done through English language programs. The government talks and plays at political point scoring on the value of migrants learning English. That is fine. I agree also that it is very helpful to migrants, but give them the tools. Give them the programs. Make it happen. I think something that indicates some of the problems with the government’s approach to citizenship in this bill—and, as I said earlier, it is used more often than not as a political tool or a political wedge—is that the government has actually cut back on funding for the Adult Migrant English Program. In fact, it has cut funding by nearly $11 million. That is a lot of money to cut out of a program that was not quite adequate as it stood before the funding was cut.
The evidence is in the results: currently only 11 per cent of the 36,000 AMEP students exit with functional level 3 English. Eleven per cent is pretty low. I will not necessarily criticise the system as to why it is so low, but I will say that obviously more effort needs to be made—perhaps flexibility and teaching method issues need to be examined. There must be a better way to ensure a better figure than just 11 per cent. Only 53 per cent complete the maximum number of hours of tuition, which is 510 hours. That also needs improvement. More money needs to be invested. Only 36 per cent actually finish the program. There is a whole range of deficiencies with the old system. That is why we support a better system, but in this new legislation there are a number of areas which we believe are still deficient, particularly the Adult Migrant English Program, and also the change of the waiting period from two to four years. The government should really look closely as what it has on the table.
Labor support these bills, but we note the lengthy time it took to bring them forward. The politicisation of citizenship is wrong, and these bills should come about for the right reasons. There has been no commitment from the government to improve the Adult Migrant English Program, and it is a very important that that program be improved. The extension of the waiting period from two to four years has no justification. However, these bills need to go ahead. They will go ahead and they will get Labor’s support, but the government ought to be on notice that, when it comes to these things, they are not the only people who have some right to views on citizenship and how it affects migrants and the Australian community alike.
Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.